Legal Opinion

Rowe v. City of Durham

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 27, 1952No. 739PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtYalentiNE, J.

This litigation, stripped to its essentials, questions the right of Mrs. S. K. Hester to withdraw the lot in question from her offer of dedication arising from the recordation of the plat of the “Hester Subdivision.” Only the city of Durham is attempting to assert any rights against the plaintiffs with respect to the property in question.

It is true that a purchaser of a lot which has been sold by reference to a subdivision, a plat of which has been recorded, acquires the equitable right to have the street appearing on the map opened for his benefit. Hughes v. Clark, 134 N.C. 457, 47 S.E. 462;…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Conrad v. West End Hotel & Land Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1900
  2. State v. . FisherSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1895
  3. Kennedy v. . WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882
  4. Lee v. WalkerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
  5. Hughes v. Clark.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Town of Blowing Rock v. GregorieSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
  2. State Highway Commission v. ThorntonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  3. Wofford v. North Carolina State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  4. Steadman v. Town of PinetopsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  5. Sugg v. . GreenvilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915

12 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