In Re the Will of Neal
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtSchenck, J.
The order of the Superior Court must be vacated for two reasons: First, the correctness of the clerk’s action in refusing to probate Exhibits “B,” “0” and “D” was not before the court, as the propounders had either abandoned their appeal or were not pressing it; and, second, no one is now propounding any of the three paper writings marked Exhibits “B,” “0” and “D” as the last will and testament of the deceased.
Nor are the caveators asking that they be probated as "wills.” In re Will of Westfeldt, 188 N. C., 702, 125 S. E., 531. In the caveat it is alleged that each of said paper writings is…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- In Re WestfeldtSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
- Mills v. . MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
- In re Last Will & Testament of WestfeldtSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
- In Re BaileySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
- Wells v. . OdumSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- In Re Will of PuettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
- In Re Will of WolfeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
- In Re Will of McDowellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
- In re Will of PuettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
- Wing v. Goldman Sachs Tr. Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2022
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.