Legal Opinion

Bailey v. . Howell

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 18, 1936PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDevin, J.

The defendants seek to sustain the nonsuit on the ground that the plaintiffs are barred by the three-years statute of limitations, O. S., 441 (10), or by seven years adverse possession under color of title.

It is admitted that the sheriff’s deed was void. It was not made in conformity with the statutory provisions in effect prior to the Act of 1927. The Act of 1927, ch. 221, which went into effect 9 March, 1927, changed the law as to tax deeds, repealed secs. 8028 to 8037, inclusive, of the Consolidated Statutes, and substituted the remedy by suit for foreclosure of the certificate of tax…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Hicks v. . BullockSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1887
  2. Crews v. . CrewsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  3. John L. Roper Lumber Co. v. Richmond Cedar WorksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
  4. Price v. SlagleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  5. McNair v. . BoydSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Bryant v. KellyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971
  2. Battle v. BattleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
  3. Stell v. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
  4. Stephens v. . ClarkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
  5. Edwards v. ArnoldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959

5 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