Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Bailey v. . Hayman

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 26, 1941PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1ConcurrenceSeawell, J.

New trial.

Petition for partition here on appeal at the Fall Term, 1940. See Baileyv. Hayman, 218 N.C. 175, 10 S.E.2d 667. The plaintiffs filed a petition for the sale of certain lands for partition, alleging that they, with defendant Hayman, were "the owners in fee, tenants in common, and in possession" of the lands described, setting out the alleged interests of the several parties. The defendant, answering, denied the allegation of cotenancy and of plaintiffs' ownership, alleging that he "is the owner of in fee simple, and in the sole possession" of the lands described. Defendant further…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Withers v. . LaneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
  2. State v. . HartSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
  3. Fourth National Bank v. McArthurSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  4. State v. . RhinehartSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  5. Corruthers v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1939

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State v. CanipeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  2. Hyder v. ASHEVILLE STORAGE BATTERY COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  3. Andrews v. AndrewsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
  4. State v. . BentonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
  5. Jernigan v. . JerniganSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946

3 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