Legal Opinion

Sutton v. North Carolina Joint Stock Land Bank

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 7, 1937Published

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

Conceding that under the principles announced in McLamb v. McLamb, 208 N. C., 72, 178 S. E., 847, and Ins. Co. v. Cates, 193 N. C., 456, 137 S. E., 324, and the kindred doctrines promulgated in Bank v. Page, 206 N. C., 18, 173 S. E., 312, and Porter v. Ins. Co., 207 N. C., 646, 178 S. E., 223, the plaintiff originally had some rights, cognizable in equity, it would appear that his agreement, made in exchange for indulgences, not to bring any further proceeding “to restrain said sale,” ought to be respected in this, the third suit instituted for the purpose. The cestui also has some rights.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Leak v. . ArmfieldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
  2. Union Central Life Insurance v. CatesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  3. First Carolinas Joint Stock Land Bank v. PageSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  4. Porter v. Jefferson Standard Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
  5. Dennis v. RedmondSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936

2 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