Legal Opinion

North Carolina Self Help Corp. v. Brinkley

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 24, 1939PublishedCited by 55 opinions

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

  1. Boddie v. BondSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
  2. Bateman v. . HopkinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
  3. Spencer v. . BrownSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  4. Carson v. . RaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1860
  5. Blow v. . VaughanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890

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

3Cited by55 opinions

  1. Root v. Allstate Insurance CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  2. Peek v. Wachovia Bank & Trust CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  3. WACHOVIA BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. WolfeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
  4. Robbins v. C. W. Myers Trading Post, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  5. Gaston-Lincoln Transit, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1974

50 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