Hammer v. Brantley
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtBarnhill, C. J.
This appeal is not complicated by the indefiniteness of the devise to Gennie Bunting. The bounds of her devise have been settled by the parties by an agreement of partition in which the 100 acres have been set apart to her by metes and bounds.
“It is established by repeated decisions of this Court that the rule in Shelley’s case is still recognized in this jurisdiction, and where the same obtains it does so as a rule of property without regard to the intent of the grantor or devisor. Jones v. Whichard, 163 N.C. 241; Price v. Griffin, 150 N.C. 523; Edgerton v. Aycock, 123 N.C. 134; Chamblee v.…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Starnes v. . HillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893
- Jones v. . WhichardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
- Hampton v. GriggsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
- Chas. W. Priddy & Co. v. SanderfordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
- Merchants National Bank v. DortchSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Ray v. RaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- Wright v. VadenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
- Chappell v. ChappellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- Powell v. RobersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957