Legal Opinion

Austin v. . Brown

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 28, 1926PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrogden, J.

Tbe proposition is this: Can tbe purchaser of standing timber enter upon tbe land described in tbe contract and remove therefrom 'manufactured lumber after tbe period for “cutting and removal” prescribed in tbe contract has expired? «

Tbe construction and interpretation of timber contracts has been a fruitful source of litigation and has produced an almost unnumbered multitude of decisions in tbe various courts of tbe country. Tbe courts are hopelessly divided upon many pertinent questions relating to rights flowing from timber contracts, and any attempt to distinguish, reconcile or harmonize…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Bunch v. Elizabeth City Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
  2. Bateman v. Kramer Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
  3. Hawkins v. Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
  4. Lumber Co. v. Corey.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  5. Hornthal v. . HowcottSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Fordham v. EasonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1999
  2. Kerschensteiner v. Northern Michigan Land Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1928
  3. Sarchet v. RoachWyoming Supreme Court · 1945
  4. Mote v. White Lake Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  5. Wood v. . HughesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928

3 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