Legal Opinion

Pittman v. Stanley

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 14, 1949PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDevin, J.

The determination of the question here presented depends upon the interpretation to be put upon the language in the deed “to Agnes L. Pittman and to her heirs by A. B. Pittman.” At common law the estate thus conveyed was denominated a fee tail special (2 Blk. 113), but by our statute, G.S. 41-1, it is prescribed that “every person seized of an estate in tail shall be deemed to be seized of the same in fee simple,” thus enlarging the fee tail estate into a fee simple absolute. Whitley v. Arenson, 219 N.C. 121, 12 S.E. 2d 906. We think the language of the deed of A. B. Pittman, under the…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Heyer v. BulluckSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  2. Heyer v. . BulluckSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  3. Dobbins v. Dobbins.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  4. May v. Lewis.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
  5. McIver v. . McKinneySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Parker v. PittmanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1973
  2. Whitson v. BarnettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  3. Southern Furniture Co. of Conover, Inc. v. Department of TransportationCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
  4. Revis v. . MurphySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
  5. Ray v. RaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967

2 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