Legal Opinion

Hales v. . Renfrow

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 22, 1948PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDkNNY, J.

After giving effect to the codicil to the will of the testator, the testator devised the three lots referred to herein to his sons, Thomas Edwin Hales and Roscoe II. Hales, as tenants in common, in fee simple, but in the event either son should die without children his interest will revert to the testator’s other children. As to each devisee this constitutes a fee, defeasible upon his dying without children. Conrad v. Goss, 227 N. C., 470, 42 S. E. (2d), 609; Cherry v. Cherry, 179 N. C., 4, 101 S. E., 504; Hobgood v. Hobgood, 169 N. C., 485, 86 S. E., 189. The other children, as disclosed by…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Hobgood v. HobgoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  2. Williams v. Norfolk Southern RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  3. Walker v. . ButnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
  4. Hobgood v. . HobgoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  5. Conrad v. . GossSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1947

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Buffaloe v. BlalockSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  2. Langston v. WootenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API