Legal Opinion
Rhyne v. . Sheppard
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided December 13, 1944PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBarNHill, J.
The demurrer for that plaintiffs other than Rhyne and wife are neither necessary nor proper parties to this action is well founded. Conceding but not deciding that Rhyne has a right in equity to recover for improvements made on the property of the defendant, his deed for lots 128 and 129 does not operate as an equitable assignment of his claim. His right, if any, does not run with the land upon which he mistakenly thought he was building. Lumber Co. v. Edwards, 217 N. C., 251, 7 S. E. (2d), 497.
His vendees purchased unimproved lots upon which they and their grantors honestly believed there…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Doe on Demise of Tate's Heirs v. SouthardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1824
- Dorman v. GoodmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
- Montgomery v. . BladesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
- Dorman v. . GoodmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
- Pritchard v. . WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1918
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Ron Medlin Construction v. HarrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2010
- Beacon Homes, Inc. v. HoltSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
- JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Ass'n v. BrowningCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2013
- Wright v. WrightSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
- Mountain Land Properties, Inc. v. LovellDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · 2014
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.