Legal Opinion

Jones v. . Casstevens

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 16, 1942PublishedCited by 46 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

Was it tbe intention of tbe parties that in case of a sale of the encumbered premises under foreclosure, either of tbe first or second deed of trust, payment of tbe defendants’ note should be made exclusively out of funds derived from such foreclosure? Tbe trial court answered in tbe affirmative, and we approve.

There are four principal reasons inducing tbe conclusion:

First. It is axiomatic in tbe law of contracts that “as a man consents to bind himself, so shall be be bound.” Elliott on Contracts (Vol. 3), sec. 1891; Nash v. Royster, 189 N. C., 408, 127 S. E., 356. Here, upon tbe face of tbe…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Nash v. . RoysterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  2. Evans v. Freeman.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  3. Atlantic & North Carolina Railroad v. Atlantic & North Carolina Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
  4. Typewriter Co. v. . Hardware Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  5. Cole v. Industrial Fibre Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1931

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

3Cited by46 opinions

  1. Gould Morris Electric Co. v. Atlantic Fire Insurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
  2. State v. Philip Morris USA Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2009
  3. Jones v. Palace Realty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
  4. State v. Philip Morris USA Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2005
  5. Beth Cosey v. The Prudential Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2013

41 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