Legal Opinion

Narron v. Musgrave

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 5, 1952No. 236PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDeNNY, J.

Tke ruling of the court below at tbe February Term, 1950, in so far as it held that Bichard Musgrave, Jr., cannot maintain an action for the possession of the land involved herein until after the expiration of the life estate of his father, was correct. Joyner v. Futrell, 136 N.C. 301, 48 S.E. 649; Harris v. Bennett, 160 N.C. 339, 76 S.E. 217; Blount v. Johnson, 165 N.C. 25, 80 S.E. 882; Loven v. Roper, 178 N.C. 581, 101 S.E. 263; Caskey v. West, 210 N.C. 240, 186 S.E. 324; Stephens v. Clark, 211 N.C. 84, 189 S.E. 191. This being true, the statute of limitations, with respect to such action,…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Harris v. . BennettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
  2. Moore v. . GidneySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1876
  3. Graham v. . FloydSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  4. Joyner v. Futrell.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
  5. Graham v. FloydSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Walston v. W. H. Applewhite & Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  2. PEOPLES OIL COMPANY v. RichardsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  3. Thompson v. WatkinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
  4. Menzel v. MenzelSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
  5. Stone v. ConderCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980

1 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