Legal Opinion

WACHOVIA BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. McEwen

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 24, 1954No. 533PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDenny, J.

The appellants contend that the judgment of the court below is erroneous. They insist that the remainder interests of Frances M. Hunter, Mary M. Ellington, Helen M. Anderson, and Betty W. McEwen are contingent upon their surviving the life tenant, and that the dissent of the widow did not accelerate the vesting of such interests. We do not concur in.this view.

Barnhill, J., now Chief Justice, speaking for this Court in Priddy & Co. v. Sanderford, 221 N.C. 422, 20 S.E. 2d 341, defined a vested remainder as follows: “The remainder is vested, when, throughout its continuance the remainderman and…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Chas. W. Priddy & Co. v. SanderfordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  2. Baptist Female University v. BordenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
  3. University v. . BordenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
  4. Christian v. Wilson's ExecutorsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1930
  5. Neill Ex Rel. Neill v. BachSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Little v. Wachovia Bank and Trust CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  2. Parker v. ParkerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  3. Matter of Estate of HomburgMississippi Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Keesler v. North Carolina National BankSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
  5. WACHOVIA BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. DodsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API