Neal v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtSeawell, J.
Summarizing the situation with which we have to deal, we observe that the plaintiffs in these separate actions have sued upon implied assumpsit for services rendered the decedent. The complaint in •each case, however, discloses a parol contract to convey by will specific real estate — the home place on Glenn Avenue — or its value in money, and the death of the promisor, testate, without doing either. The defendant answered, denying the contract. Subsequently the defendant demurred to the complaints, ore temos, upon the ground that plaintiffs had no separate cause of action, but must sue, if…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Grantham v. . GranthamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
- Shore v. . HoltSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
- Helsabeck v. . DoubSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
- Clark v. DavidsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
- Price v. . AskinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Christenbury Eye Ctr., P.A. v. Medflow, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2017
- Ritchie v. . WhiteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
- Coley v. . DalrympleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
- Ritchie v. WhiteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
- Jamerson v. . LoganSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.