Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1948–1979 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Gamble v. Williamsgreen1 sentence1979See Gamble v. Williams, 39 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wilkins v. . Norman
neutral
2 sentences1979In Wilkins v. Norman, 139 N.C. 40 , 51 S.E. 797 (1905), the repugnant clause followed the warranty in the deed rather than being inserted in the description. 1952Hence the granting clause will prevail and the repugnant clause will be rejected.” Citing Blackwell v. Blackwell, 124 N.C. 269 , 32 S.E. 676 ; Wilkins v. Norman, 139 N.C. 40 , 51 S.E. 797 ; Bryant v. Shields, supra; McNeill v. Blevins, 222 N.C. 170 , 22 S.E. 2d 268 . | 2 | 1952–1979 |
Wilkins v. Norman
neutral
2 sentences1979In Wilkins v. Norman, 139 N.C. 40 , 51 S.E. 797 (1905), the repugnant clause followed the warranty in the deed rather than being inserted in the description. 1952Hence the granting clause will prevail and the repugnant clause will be rejected.” Citing Blackwell v. Blackwell, 124 N.C. 269 , 32 S.E. 676 ; Wilkins v. Norman, 139 N.C. 40 , 51 S.E. 797 ; Bryant v. Shields, supra; McNeill v. Blevins, 222 N.C. 170 , 22 S.E. 2d 268 . | 2 | 1952–1979 |
McNeill v. . Blevins
neutral
2 sentences1952Hence the granting clause will prevail and the repugnant clause will be rejected.” Citing Blackwell v. Blackwell, 124 N.C. 269 , 32 S.E. 676 ; Wilkins v. Norman, 139 N.C. 40 , 51 S.E. 797 ; Bryant v. Shields, supra; McNeill v. Blevins, 222 N.C. 170 , 22 S.E. 2d 268 . 1952Hence the granting clause will prevail and the repugnant clause will be rejected.” Citing Blackwell v. Blackwell, 124 N.C. 269 , 32 S.E. 676 ; Wilkins v. Norman, 139 N.C. 40 , 51 S.E. 797 ; Bryant v. Shields, supra; McNeill v. Blevins, 222 N.C. 170 , 22 S.E. 2d 268 . | 2 | 1948–1952 |
Rowland v. . Rowland
green
1 sentence1979Justice Connor, writing for the Court, quoted with approval what was said by Justice Ashe in Rowland v. Rowland, 93 N.C. 214 (1885): “ ‘Blackstone, in his Commentaries, vol. 2, p. 298, has said that the office of the habendum is to lessen, enlarge, explain or qualify the premises, but not to contradict or be repugnant to the estate granted in the premises. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Artis v. . Artis
green
2 sentences1979The rule was stated to be: “Hence it may be stated as a rule of law that where the entire estate in fee simple, in unmistakable terms, is given the grantee in a deed, both in the granting clause and habendum, the warranty being in harmony therewith, other clauses in the deed, repugnant to the estate and interest conveyed, will be rejected.” 228 N.C. at 761 , 47 S.E. 2d at 232 . 1979The rule was stated to be: “Hence it may be stated as a rule of law that where the entire estate in fee simple, in unmistakable terms, is given the grantee in a deed, both in the granting clause and habendum, the warranty being in harmony therewith, other clauses in the deed, repugnant to the estate and interest conveyed, will be rejected.” 228 N.C. at 761 , 47 S.E. 2d at 232 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Frost v. Corporation Comm'n of Okla.
green
2 sentences1973In Frost v. Corporation Commission, 278 U.S. 515 , 73 L.Ed. 483 , 49 S.Ct. 235 (1929), the United States Supreme Court dealt with an Oklahoma statute which, as originally enacted, required a certificate of public convenience and necessity in order to engage in the business of operating a cotton gin. 1973In Frost v. Corporation Commission, 278 U.S. 515 , 73 L.Ed. 483 , 49 S.Ct. 235 (1929), the United States Supreme Court dealt with an Oklahoma statute which, as originally enacted, required a certificate of public convenience and necessity in order to engage in the business of operating a cotton gin. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Blackwell v. . Blackwell
green
2 sentences1952Hence the granting clause will prevail and the repugnant clause will be rejected.” Citing Blackwell v. Blackwell, 124 N.C. 269 , 32 S.E. 676 ; Wilkins v. Norman, 139 N.C. 40 , 51 S.E. 797 ; Bryant v. Shields, supra; McNeill v. Blevins, 222 N.C. 170 , 22 S.E. 2d 268 . 1952Hence the granting clause will prevail and the repugnant clause will be rejected.” Citing Blackwell v. Blackwell, 124 N.C. 269 , 32 S.E. 676 ; Wilkins v. Norman, 139 N.C. 40 , 51 S.E. 797 ; Bryant v. Shields, supra; McNeill v. Blevins, 222 N.C. 170 , 22 S.E. 2d 268 . | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.