Legal Opinion

Carolina Power Co. v. Haywood

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 24, 1923PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAdams, J.

It seems to be admitted that the controversy depends primarily upon the third and twentieth items of the will, and that these *317items must be interpreted in tbe light of the facts. The appellants insist that the interpretation of these clauses should be governed by the rule of construction adopted in 1827 and embodied in section 1737 of the Consolidated Statutes, and that the only two elements necessary to the operation of the statute are a contingent limitation and the death upon which the limitation is made to depend. Excluding the contingency of John LI. Boylan’s marriage and of his leaving…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. McIver v. . McKinneySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
  2. Early v. Early.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
  3. Devane v. . LarkinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1857
  4. Lawrence v. . PittSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1854
  5. Brinson v. . WhartonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1851

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Parker v. ParkerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  2. Griffin v. SpringerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
  3. Strickland v. JacksonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
  4. Pridgen v. TysonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  5. In Re Field's EstateSupreme Court of Vermont · 1928

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