Brock v. . Porter
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
Stacy, O. J.
The parties have submitted a written contract for construction. Its terms are not in dispute. What is its effect? This is the question for decision. Patton v. Lumber Co., 179 N. C., 103, 101 S. E., 613; Spragins v. White, 108 N. C., 449, 13 S. E., 171; Festerman v. Parker, 32 N. C., 477; Young v. Jeffreys, 20 N. C., 357.
It will be observed that tbe parties themselves undertook to spell out their meaning by limiting the agreement to such heirs or assigns “who occupy the premises,” and it is provided that water for household purposes shall be furnished “to party or parties occupying…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Cole v. Industrial Fibre Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
- Perry v. Southern Surety Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
- Patton v. Sinclaire Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
- American Potato Co. v. Jenette Bros.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
- Young v. . JeffreysSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1838
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Cannon v. . CannonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
- Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Nello L. Teer Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
- Church v. HancockSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
- Hilley v. Blue Ridge InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. WhitfieldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.