Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Fowle v. . Ham

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 11, 1918PublishedCited by 17 opinions

ActioN to restrain the cutting of timber and to recover damages, heard by Gonnor, J., at May Term, 1918, of Beaueort. The Court denied a restraining order, and plaintiffs appealed.

1ConcurrenceHoke, J.

The Court denied a restraining order, and plaintiffs appealed. The admitted facts are, that plaintiffs bought the land in controversy from Weston, who owned it. The deed was duly recorded, but never cross-indexed — that is, the name of the grantor was entirely omitted from the index.

Weston afterwards conveyed 20 acres of the land to one Cox, whose deed was duly recorded and indexed. There was nothing to show in the grantor index that Weston had ever conveyed the land to plaintiffs, and, so far as the record discloses, Cox, who conveyed the land to defendant, himself had no knowledge, when…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Falconer v. SimmonsWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1902
  2. Davis v. . WhitakerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1894

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Potter v. Carolina Water CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  2. Whitehurst v. GarrettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
  3. Wilkinson v. . WallaceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  4. Clement v. . HarrisonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  5. Story v. . SladeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930

12 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