Legal Opinion

Carney v. Edwards

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 13, 1961No. 462PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRodman, J.

Determinative of the appeal are the legal conclusions that “the exact location of the five acre Ednabel C. Holder tract is immaterial to a decision of this controversy” because “the general description ‘being all those portions of tracts Nos. 4 and 5 lying west of Reedy Creek Road as the same is now situated excepting only that 5 acre tract conveyed to Ednabel C. Holder’ prevails over the conflicting metes and bounds description’ in the deed from Collins and wife to Rogers.” If these conclusions are correct, the judgment must be affirmed. To determine that question we must ascertain what…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. WACHOVIA BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. MillerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  2. Batson v. BellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
  3. Thornburg v. . MastenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1883
  4. Jenkins v. TranthamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
  5. Midgett v. . TwifordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1897

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. RESORT DEVELOPMENT CO. v. PhillipsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  2. Station Associates, Inc. v. Dare CountySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1999
  3. Day v. GodwinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
  4. Coley v. MORRIS TELEPHONE COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  5. Wescott v. State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964

5 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