Huddleston v. . Hardy
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal by defendant from Justice, J., at July Term, 1913, of McDowell. This is an action to recover land. The plaintiffs are tbe heirs at law of A. E. Huddleston. The defendant claims under a deed from the said A. F. Huddleston, and the question in controversy is whether there is any evidence of the delivery of this deed.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from Justice, J., at July Term, 1913, of McDowell. This is an action to recover land. The plaintiffs are tbe heirs at law of A. E. Huddleston. The defendant claims under a deed from the said A. F. Huddleston, and the question in controversy is whether there is any evidence of the delivery of this deed. During the trial of the cause the plaintiffs introduced as a ■ witness one L. A. Haney, who testified as follows: That he had talked to old man Huddleston more than once about preparing a deed for him to sign to defendant; that on Sunday, 3 May, 1903, he went over to his…
1Opinion of the CourtAlleN, J.
If there is any evidence of a delivery of the deed to Haney for the defendant, the ruling of his Honor is erroneous, and the case of Weaver v. Weaver, 159 N. C., 18, would be decisive in favor of the contention of the plaintiffs that there. is no such evidence, if the paper-writing executed after the deed was signed, by which the control of the deed remained with the grantor, had been incorporated in the deed, -or had passed from the grantor at the same time with the deed.
It was held in the Weaver case that there is no delivery if the grantor reserves the right of recall, although the deed is…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Fortune v. . HuntSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- Tarlton v. Griggs.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1902
- Weaver v. . WeaverSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912