Legal Opinion

Shields v. Harris

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 25, 1925PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtYaeser, J.

A condition subsequent with a clause of reverter does not appear in the deed recited nor does it arise by clear implication. Braddy v. Elliott, 146 N. C., 578. No apt words are used to indicate an intention to create a condition subsequent which will work with a forfeiture. To every good expressed condition is required an external form, that is, sufficient words to declare an intent in the party to have the estate conditional, and an internal form, that is, such matter as whereof a condition may be made. Shep. Touchstone, vol. 1, *126 (241) ; Scantlin v. Garvin, 46 Ind., 262. The proper…

2Cases cited50 opinions

  1. Stanley v. ColtSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
  2. Avery v. StewartSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
  3. Finlay v. King's LesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1830
  4. Sohier v. Trinity ChurchMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
  5. Dingley v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Holt v. College of Osteopathic Physicians & SurgeonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
  2. Bizzell Ex Rel. Bizzell v. Board of AldermenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  3. Shannonhouse v. . WolfeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  4. Ange v. AngeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
  5. Lassiter v. . JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939

8 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