Nantahala Power and Light Co. v. Horton
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtBobbitt, J.
Whatever rights the grantors in said deed of May 10, 1938, reserved by the “exceptions, limitations and reservations” therein set forth, vested in respondents Horton when the condemnation proceeding was instituted. Subject thereto, respondents Stikeleather, et al., owned the 557-acre tract in fee simple.
Unquestionably, said reservations and exceptions severed the minerals and mining rights from the surface rights. Vance v. Guy, 223 N.C. 409, 27 S.E. 2d 117, and cases cited; English v. Clay Co., 225 N. C. 467, 35 S.E. 2d 329.
Respondents Stikeleather, et al., on their appeal, challenge the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. MossSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
- Vance v. . GuySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
- Booker v. Town of HighlandsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
- Brown v. E. H. Clement Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
- Bartlett v. HopkinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Barnes v. North Carolina State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
- Dockery v. HocuttSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2003
- In re Proceedings for the Condemnation of a Fee Simple Interest in Land Owned by: LeeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
- In Re LeeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
- Faucette v. ZimmermanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.