North Carolina Self Help Corp. v. Brinkley
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtWiNBORNE, J.
We are of opinion that defendants’ exceptive assignments with respect to failure of the court to charge in relation to the second and third issues are well taken. We find no error in the judgment below as it relates to the first issue.
1. Defendants challenge the sufficiency of the description in the deed of 29 September, 1922, from Zeb Y. Brinkley and wife to Susie Drink-water, to include their undivided one-half interest in Lot No. 3 or the fee in Lot No. 4.
“It is ... a general rule that the deed must be upheld, if possible, and the terms and phraseology of description will be interpreted…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Boddie v. BondSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
- Bateman v. . HopkinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
- Spencer v. . BrownSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
- Carson v. . RaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1860
- Blow v. . VaughanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by55 opinions
- Root v. Allstate Insurance CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
- Peek v. Wachovia Bank & Trust CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
- WACHOVIA BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. WolfeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
- Robbins v. C. W. Myers Trading Post, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
- Gaston-Lincoln Transit, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.