WACHOVIA BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. Wolfe
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtBobbitt, J.
Did the testatrix use the words “personal property” to ■denote everything she owned except real property? Defendant Wolfe says, “Yes.” Defendant Red Cross says, “No,” contending that when used in the clause, “I leave my furniture, household effects and personal property,” the “personal property” in mind was ejusdem generis, that is, tangible articles of household and personal use.
The court, based solely on the will itself and the admissions, construed the will and entered judgment in-favor of defendant Red Cross.
The controversy concerns the assets, noted above, now in the hands of the…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Heyer v. BulluckSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- Heyer v. . BulluckSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- In Re Housing Authority of City of SalisburySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- North Carolina Self Help Corp. v. BrinkleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
- Cannon v. . CannonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by51 opinions
- Robbins v. C. W. Myers Trading Post, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
- Carpenter v. CarpenterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
- Poindexter v. WACHOVIA BANK AND TRUST COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- WACHOVIA BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. WolfeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
- Entwistle v. CovingtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.