Legal Opinion

In Re the Will of Loftin

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided January 15, 1975No. 748SC824PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

ARNOLD, Judge.

Caveator urges this Court either to reverse the judgment below on the ground that the paperwriting in question is insufficient as a matter of law to constitute a holographic codicil or to order a new trial for errors committed in the caveat proceeding. Our courts have uniformly held once a caveat to the probate in common form has been filed, a jury’s verdict is indispensable upon the issue devisavit vel non. In re Will or Morrow, 234 N.C. 365, 67 S.E. 2d 279; In re Will of Hine, 228 N.C. 405, 45 S.E. 2d 526; In re Will of Redding, 216 N.C. 497, 5 S.E. 2d 544; In re Will of…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Nicholson v. Eureka Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
  2. Alexander v. . JohnstonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
  3. In Re the Probate of the Last Will & Testament of HineSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1947
  4. In Re Will of ReddingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
  5. In Re Will of BartlettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. In re the Will of PenleyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989

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

Powered by the Exa API