McCullen v. Durham
Supreme Court of North Carolina
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
- Gaylord v. GaylordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
- Davis v. . BassSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
- Gaylord v. . GaylordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
- Board of Education v. MakelySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
- Butler v. ButlerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
55 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Rural Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. H. C. Jones Construction Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
- Smith v. PateSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
- Arnold v. Ray Charles Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
- Davis v. VaughnSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
- RESORT DEVELOPMENT CO. v. PhillipsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.