Legal Opinion

Bagwell v. . Hines

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 7, 1924PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHoke, J.

It was formerly held in this jurisdiction, and with some strictness, that the habendum of a deed was not allowed to destroy an estate or interest definitely conveyed in the premises or to create an estate that was necessarily repugnant to it. Wilkins v. Norman, 139 N. C., 39; Blackwell v. Blackwell, 124 N. C., 269; Rowland v. Rowland, 93 N. C., 214; Hafner v. Irwin, 20 N. C., 570. The position was somewhat modified in the well-considered case of Triplett v. Williams, 149 N. C., 394, opinion by Associate Justice Brown, wherein it was held that except when otherwise controlled by an arbitrary…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Triplett v. . WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
  2. Rowland v. . RowlandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885
  3. Hafner v. . IrwinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1838
  4. Blackwell v. . BlackwellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1899
  5. Walker v. . TaylorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1907

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Boyd v. . CampbellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  2. Kenney v. Balsam Hotel Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  3. Pilley v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
  4. McNeill v. . BlevinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  5. Von Herff v. . RichardsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926

5 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