Helms v. . Austin
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was a speoial pboceeding for the partition of land, brought originally before the Clerk of the Superior Court of Union County and transferred to Term for trial of the issues of law and fact raised by the pleadings and heard before Winston, J., and a jury, at August Term, 1894, of UNION Superior Court. The facts appear in the opinion of Chief Justice Fairoloth.
1Opinion of the Court
Faikoloth, C. J.:
This was an action for partition before the clerk and was transferred to the Superior Court. The defendants denied that the plaintiffs had any interest in the land to be divided, which was equivalent to the plea of “ sole seizin.” The question arises upon three deeds made by Ennis Staton of the first part, and “ Sarah Staton his wife and her heirs, named on the back of this deed, of the other part,” the said Ennis Staton reserving his life estate in the lands conveyed, and the consideration named is love and affection. On the back of each deed is endorsed the names of the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Leathers v. . GraySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1888
- Vickers v. . LeighSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
- Brittain v. . MullSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1884
- Holmes v. . HolmesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882
- Pritchard v. . BaileySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Smith v. Proctor.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
- Kelly Springfield Tire Co. v. LesterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
- Buchanan v. . ClarkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
- Bryan v. . EasonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- Tarlton v. Griggs.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1902
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.