Legal Opinion

Duke v. Hill

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided May 1, 1984No. 832SC134PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PHILLIPS, Judge.

In this partition proceeding, whether the land owned by the parties should be partitioned in kind among them according to their respective interests or whether it should be sold and the proceeds divided, was a question of fact for the court. Barber v. Barber, 195 N.C. 711, 143 S.E. 469 (1928). Since petitioners’ allegation that the property could not be actually partitioned among the parties without injury to some or all the parties was denied by the respondents, the burden of establishing that a sale was necessary reposed on petitioners. Brown v. Boger, 263 N.C. 248, 139 S.E.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. . StricklandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
  2. State v. StricklandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
  3. Brown v. BogerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  4. Apex Tire and Rubber Co. v. Merritt Tire Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  5. Barber v. . BarberSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Walker v. WalkerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005
  2. State v. MullinaxCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2006
  3. Nye v. NyeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API