Conner v. Ridley
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtBobbitt, J.
We pass, without discussion or decision, appellee’s contention that the excluded evidence was insufficient to support a finding that Mrs. Lillie Conner made an oral agreement with plaintiff as alleged; for, in our view, the testimony tending to show such oral agreement, being in direct conflict with plaintiff’s deed, is incompetent.
A well established rule is stated by Hoke, J. (later C. J.), in this oft-quoted excerpt from his opinion in the case of Gaylord v. Gaylord, 150 N.C. 222, 227, 63 S.E. 1028: “Upon the creation of these estates (parol trusts), however, our authorities seem to have…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Gaylord v. GaylordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
- Gaylord v. . GaylordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
- Barbee v. . BarbeeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
- Walters v. . WaltersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
- Campbell v. . SigmonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Marriott Financial Services, Inc. v. Capitol Funds, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
- Willetts v. WillettsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
- Rourk v. Brunswick CountyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
- Speller v. SpellerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
- Pelaez v. PelaezCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.