undoubted principle (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

undoubted principle in North Carolina

10 North Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 1901–1950 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
York v. . Merrittgreen
nc · 1879 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1909–1909
1 sentence

1909See York v. Merritt , 80 N.C. 285 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

CaseCitedYears
Jones v. Casualty Co. green
nc · 1905
2 sentences

1928In Davis v. Frazier , 150 N.C. 451 , appears this statement: "It is an undoubted principle that a `subsequent clause irreconcilable with the former clause and repugnant to the general purpose and intent of the contract will be set aside.' This was expressly held in Jones v. Casualty Co. , 140 N.C. 262 , and there are many decisions with us to like effect; but as indicated in the case referred to and the authorities cited in its support, this principle is in subordination to another position, that the intent of the parties as embodied in the entire instrument is the end to be attained, and that

1928In Davis v. Frazier, 150 N. C., 451 , appears this statement: “It is an undoubted principle that a. ‘subsequent clause irreconcilable with the former clause and repugnant to the general purpose and intent of the contract will be set aside.’ This was expressly held in Jones v. Casualty Co., 140 N. C., 262 , and there are many decisions with us to like effect; but as indicated in the case referred to and the authorities cited in its support, this principle is in subordination to another position, that the intent of the parties as embodied in the entire instrument is the end to be attained, and t

71909–1928
Kea v. . Robeson green
nc · 1848
2 sentences

1928Jones v. Casualty Co., supra; Lawson on Contracts, secs. 388, 389; Bishop on Contracts, secs. 386, 387." And in Meroney v. Cherokee Lodge , 182 N.C. 739 : "The modern doctrine, that a deed must be construed as a whole, or by spreading it out before us so that we see it by its four corners, was adopted by us many years ago, one of the earlier cases being Kea v. Robeson , 40 N.C. 373 , which was later followed by Gudger v. White , 141 N.C. 507 , where the rule was exhaustively considered and the former cases fully cited.

1928Jones v. Casualty Co., supra; Lawson on Contracts, secs. 388, 389; Bishop on Contracts, secs. 386, 387.” And in Meroney v. Cherokee Lodge, 182 N. C., 739 : “The modern doctrine, that a deed must be construed as a whole, or by spreading it out before us so that we see it by its four corners, was adopted by us many years ago, one of the earlier cases being Kea v. Robeson, 40 N. C., 373 , which was later followed by Gudger v. White, 141 N. C., 507 , where the rule was exhaustively considered and the former eases fully cited.

21928–1928
Meroney v. . Cherokee Lodge green
nc · 1921
2 sentences

1928Jones v. Casualty Co., supra; Lawson on Contracts, secs. 388, 389; Bishop on Contracts, secs. 386, 387." And in Meroney v. Cherokee Lodge , 182 N.C. 739 : "The modern doctrine, that a deed must be construed as a whole, or by spreading it out before us so that we see it by its four corners, was adopted by us many years ago, one of the earlier cases being Kea v. Robeson , 40 N.C. 373 , which was later followed by Gudger v. White , 141 N.C. 507 , where the rule was exhaustively considered and the former cases fully cited.

1928Jones v. Casualty Co., supra; Lawson on Contracts, secs. 388, 389; Bishop on Contracts, secs. 386, 387.” And in Meroney v. Cherokee Lodge, 182 N. C., 739 : “The modern doctrine, that a deed must be construed as a whole, or by spreading it out before us so that we see it by its four corners, was adopted by us many years ago, one of the earlier cases being Kea v. Robeson, 40 N. C., 373 , which was later followed by Gudger v. White, 141 N. C., 507 , where the rule was exhaustively considered and the former eases fully cited.

21928–1928
Gudger v. White. neutral
nc · 1906
2 sentences

1928Jones v. Casualty Co., supra; Lawson on Contracts, secs. 388, 389; Bishop on Contracts, secs. 386, 387." And in Meroney v. Cherokee Lodge , 182 N.C. 739 : "The modern doctrine, that a deed must be construed as a whole, or by spreading it out before us so that we see it by its four corners, was adopted by us many years ago, one of the earlier cases being Kea v. Robeson , 40 N.C. 373 , which was later followed by Gudger v. White , 141 N.C. 507 , where the rule was exhaustively considered and the former cases fully cited.

1928Jones v. Casualty Co., supra; Lawson on Contracts, secs. 388, 389; Bishop on Contracts, secs. 386, 387.” And in Meroney v. Cherokee Lodge, 182 N. C., 739 : “The modern doctrine, that a deed must be construed as a whole, or by spreading it out before us so that we see it by its four corners, was adopted by us many years ago, one of the earlier cases being Kea v. Robeson, 40 N. C., 373 , which was later followed by Gudger v. White, 141 N. C., 507 , where the rule was exhaustively considered and the former eases fully cited.

21928–1928
Fortesque v. . Crawford neutral
nc · 1890
2 sentences

1950Fortesque v. Crawford, 105 N.C. 29 , 10 S.E. 910 .

1950Fortesque v. Crawford, 105 N.C. 29 , 10 S.E. 910 .

11950–1950
State v. . Glen green
nc · 1859
1 sentence

1901State v. Glenn, 52 N. C., 321 ; Smith v. Ingram, 29 N. C., 175 ; Williams v. Buchanan, 23 N. C., 535 .

11901–1901
Smith v. . Ingram neutral
nc · 1847
1 sentence

1901State v. Glenn, 52 N. C., 321 ; Smith v. Ingram, 29 N. C., 175 ; Williams v. Buchanan, 23 N. C., 535 .

11901–1901
Williams v. . Buchanan neutral
nc · 1841
1 sentence

1901State v. Glenn, 52 N. C., 321 ; Smith v. Ingram, 29 N. C., 175 ; Williams v. Buchanan, 23 N. C., 535 .

11901–1901

Where else courts name it

NY 25 (1799–1976) PA 14 (1843–1980) MO 12 (1858–1986) CA 12 (1901–1975) NC 10 (1901–1950) TX 9 (1848–1958) CT 8 (1826–1992) WA 7 (1909–1961) IA 6 (1895–1909) MN 6 (1877–1964) OK 5 (1895–1963) CO 5 (1895–1946) FL 5 (1928–1962) MD 5 (1847–1970) IL 5 (1916–1979) MI 4 (1908–1959) NJ 4 (1845–1953) NE 3 (1928–1959) IN 3 (1875–1896) OH 3 (1878–1952) GA 3 (1907–1953) MA 3 (1907–2000) KY 2 (1887–1924) ID 2 (1911–1925) MT 2 (1906–1913) DE 2 (1893–1945) AZ 2 (1917–1937) AL 2 (1855–1882) TN 2 (1903–1953)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check