Legal Opinion

Mercer v. . Downs

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 17, 1926PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrogden, J.

Tbe determinative question is whether or not the remainder created by item second of said will is vested or contingent. If said item creates a vested remainder, then the plaintiffs can convey a fee-simple title; and, upon the other hand, if the remainder is contingent, then the plaintiffs cannot convey such a title.

A vested remainder is thus defined in Tiffany Eeal Property, (2 ed.), sec. 135 : “A vested remainder is an estate which is deprived of the right of immediate possession by the existence of another estate created by the same instrument.” The same author defines a contingent…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Starnes v. . HillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893
  2. Bowen v. Hackney.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
  3. Whitesides v. . CooperSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1894
  4. Irvin v. . ClarkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1887
  5. Witty v. WittySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Parker v. ParkerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  2. Smyth v. . McKissickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
  3. Scales v. . BarringerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  4. Woody v. . CatesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  5. Kale v. ForrestSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971

20 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