Legal Opinion

Higgins v. Hough

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 23, 1928PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrogden, J.

There is no allegation and no finding of fact to the effect that the property in controversy was a part of a general plan or scheme. The trial judge found as a fact that by reason of the growth and expansion of the city the essential nature and character of the property *654has been changed. The record discloses ample evidence to support the findings of the trial judge. These findings of fact bring the case squarely within the principle announced by this Court in Starkey v. Gardner, 194 N. C., 74, 138 S. E., 408. In that ease it was said: “The weight of authority is to the effect that if…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Starkey v. GardnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  2. Starkey v. . GardnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Fairfield Harbour Property Owners Ass'n v. Midsouth Golf, LLCCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2011
  2. Shuford v. Asheville Oil CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
  3. Franklin v. Elizabeth Realty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
  4. Bass v. . HunterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
  5. In re MidSouth Golf, LLCUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. North Carolina · 2016

4 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