Legal Opinion

Virginia-Carolina Laundry Supply Corp. v. Scott

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 4, 1966No. 28PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLake, J.

The first question to be determined is whether the holder of the note which the deed of trust purports to secure is a necessary party to this action. In Hancock v. Wooten, 107 N.C. 9, 12 S.E. 199, certain creditors, in behalf of themselves and all other creditors of the grantor, attacked as a fraud upon creditors a deed of assignment to a trustee to secure payment of claims specified therein. One of the creditors so preferred died. The trustees contended that her representative was a necessary party to the action. Shepherd, J., later C.J., speaking for the Court, said:

“[W]e will consider the…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Warren v. . MakelySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1881
  2. Hancock Bros. & Co. v. WootenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
  3. McCanless v. . FlinchumSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1883
  4. Hobbs v. CashwellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1910
  5. Brown v. . MitchellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Nytco Leasing, Inc. v. Southeastern Motels, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
  2. L & M GAS COMPANY v. LeggettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  3. Wurlitzer Distributing Corp. v. SchofieldCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
  4. Gahagan v. GosnellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  5. Camden County v. Northeastern Community Development Corp.District Court, E.D. North Carolina · 2017

4 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