Legal Opinion

Queen v. Sisk

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 14, 1953No. 172PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBaRNhiul, J.

The specific land to be conveyed other than that which was actually described in the deed executed by defendant and delivered to plaintiffs is entirely too uncertain to entitle plaintiffs to a decree of reformation or specific performance. They are relegated to their right, if any, to recover the amount erroneously paid defendant at the time the deed was delivered.

What are tbe rights of a purchaser of real property when it is discovered that his deed does not convey the number of acres recited in the description contained in his deed? On this question there are two distinct lines of…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Simms v. . VickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
  2. Smathers v. . GilmerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1900
  3. Sparrow v. John Morrell & Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
  4. Foy v. . HaughtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1881
  5. Morgan v. . SpruillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Dean v. MattoxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
  2. Keith v. WilderSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  3. Hoots v. CalawaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
  4. Harrell v. PowellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  5. Eastern Service Management Company v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1966

2 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