Legal Opinion

In Re Will of Atkinson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 31, 1945PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

The defendants in the deed case and the propounders in the issue of devisavit vel non present as their first exception the consolidation of the two proceedings for trial. They duly objected to the consolidation at the time and assign this as error.

While the allegation of undue influence is broader in the caveat than it is in the deed case, and some of the matters transpiring between the execution of the two instruments may not have been competent as tending to show undue influence in the procurement of the deed, still it is not apparent from the record that the appellants were disadvantaged…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Speas v. Merchants Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
  2. McNeill v. . McNeillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
  3. In Re Will of CravenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  4. Skyland Hosiery Co. v. American Railway Express Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
  5. Vance v. . GuySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Gibson v. Central Manufacturers' Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  2. Norwood v. CarterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  3. Locke v. StuartDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1959
  4. In Re the Purported Last Will & Testament of SechrestCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
  5. Baars v. Campbell University, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002

17 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