Legal Opinion

Hudson v. . Cozart

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 3, 1920PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The action is to enforce the specific performance of a contract to convey a parcel or lot of land in the city of Wilson, pursuant to an option to purchase the same, contained in a written agreement executed by defendants to the plaintiff.

On the hearing, it was admitted that the said lot was owned by the five named defendants, the interest being as follows: one-third by S.W. Smith, one third by W. P. Anderson, one-sixth by U. H. Cozart, and one-twelfth each by Eagles and Carr. It further appeared that the defendants had executed the written agreement, and that no deed for the lot had been…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. President of the Bank of Columbia v. HagnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
  2. Carman v. . PultzNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
  3. Winders v. . KenanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1918
  4. Blood v. GoodrichNew York Supreme Court · 1832
  5. Trogden v. . WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1907

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Pearce v. Third Ave. Improvement Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1930
  2. Kirk v. First Georgia Investment Corp.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1977
  3. Kottler v. MartinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  4. Hinson v. . ShugartSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
  5. Carr v. Good Shepherd Home, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1967

3 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