Legal Opinion

Strigas v. Durham Life Insurance

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 6, 1953No. 665PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDeNNT, J.

Where an instrument is wholly in writing and the intention of the writer must be ascertained from the document itself, the intention of the writer as well as the effect of that intention is a question of law. Young v. Jeffreys, 20 N.C. 357; Spragins v. White, 108 N.C. 449, 13 S.E. 171; Mining Co. v. Smelting Co., 122 N.C. 542, 29 S.E. 940; Wilson v. Cotton Mills, 140 N.C. 52, 52 S.E. 250; Patton v. Lumber Co., 179 N.C. 103, 101 S.E. 613. And if the terms of a writing or contract are explicit, the court determines their effect simply by declaring their legal meaning. Wilson v. Cotton Mills,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Spruill v. Northwestern Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1897
  2. State v. . PrinceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
  3. Patton v. Sinclaire Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
  4. Young v. . JeffreysSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1838
  5. Spragins v. . WhiteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Lane v. ScarboroughSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
  2. Wilson v. McClennySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  3. Callaham v. ArensonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  4. Thomas-Yelverton Co. v. State Capital Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  5. Nunn v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967

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