Legal Opinion

McCullen v. Durham

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 10, 1948PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEkvin, J.

The trial court properly rejected the testimony of Maurice Durham under the well established rule of law that an express trust resting in parol cannot be engrafted in favor of the grantor upon a warranty deed conveying to the grantee an absolute and unqualified title in fee. Poston v. Bowen, 228 N. C. 202, 44 S. E. (2) 881; Loftin v. Kornegay, 225 N. C. 490, 35 S. E. (2) 418; Briley v. Roberson, 214 N. C. 295, 199 S. E. 73; Penland v. Wells, 201 N. C. 173, 159 S. E. 423; Waddell v. Aycock, 195 N. C. 268, 142 S. E. 10; Perry v. Surety Co., 190 N. C. 284, 129 S. E. 721; Blue v. Wilmington, 186…

2Cases cited60 opinions

  1. Gaylord v. GaylordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
  2. Davis v. . BassSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
  3. Gaylord v. . GaylordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
  4. Board of Education v. MakelySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
  5. Butler v. ButlerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Rural Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. H. C. Jones Construction Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  2. Smith v. PateSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  3. Arnold v. Ray Charles Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  4. Davis v. VaughnSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
  5. RESORT DEVELOPMENT CO. v. PhillipsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971

15 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