Legal Opinion

Gray v. . Mewborn

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 12, 1927PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Stacy, C. J".,

after stating the case: The defendants, by their demurrer, admit, for the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the complaint (Brick Co. v. Gentry, 191 N. C., 636), that it was the intention of the parties, at the time of the execution and delivery of the Mewborn mortgage, to make it subject to other liens, including the Gray mortgage, and that, through fraud or mistake, reference to the prior encumbrances was inserted in the warranty clause rather than in the premises or habendum of said instrument, which was held to be insufficient in the foreclosure proceeding (Quere? Hardy…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Gillam v. . EdmonsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1910
  2. Holloway v. City of DurhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1918
  3. Clarke v. AldridgeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
  4. Clement v. . HarrisonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  5. Hardy v. . AbdallahSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Gray v. . MewbornSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
  2. L. Harvey & Sons Co. v. RouseSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API