Legal Opinion

Carr v. . Parsons

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 2, 1934Published

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

The extension clause in question partakes of the nature of an option and is available to the grantee only upon notice and payment when due of “the yearly tax assessed against that part of the land on which the timber has not been removed.” The right, therefore, which arises from the exercise of this option, inures to the benefit of the present owners or those primarily liable for the yearly tax. Hood v. McGill, ante, 83.

Speaking to the subject in Bennett v. Lumber Co., 191 N. C., 425, 131 S. E., 741, it was said:

“The decisions on the subject are to the effect that these extension provisions,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bateman v. Kramer Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
  2. Dill-Cramer-Truitt Corp. v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
  3. Munger & Bennett, Inc. v. East Carolina Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1926

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API