Legal Opinion

Quelch v. . Futch

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 22, 1918PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Appeal by defendant from Bond, J., at tbe February Term, 1917, of New HaNover.

1Opinion of the Court

Per Cukiam:

We bave carefully examined tbis case and find tbat there is no reversible error.

Tbis case was before the Court at Fall Term, 1916, 172 N. C., 316. We held at tbat time as follows:

“We bave in tbe deed in question a description by metes and bounds, in which tbe land in controversy is not conveyed, and also a description wbicb refers to another deed duly recorded by book and page wbicb gives a definite description covering tbe land in controversy.
“It must be admitted tbat if tbe first or specific description entirely is eliminated from tbe deed, according to tbe evidence, tbe second…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Triplett v. . WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
  2. Bost v. . BostSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882
  3. State v. Ledford.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
  4. R. R. v. . Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  5. Quelch v. . FutchSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. R. R. v. . Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  2. Call v. StroudSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  3. Perry v. Southern Surety Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  4. Pope v. . PopeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1918
  5. Beaman v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1953

9 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