Blanton v. . Boney

95 S.E. 361, 175 N.C. 211, 1918 N.C. LEXIS 37
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided March 20, 1918·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

AlleN, J.

The principal contention of the defendant in the Superior Court was that there was a division by parol of the lands of Abratn Blanton among his heirs, and, as conveyances had been executed in recognition of this partition, that the plaintiffs could not now claim the two shares set apart to the two children under whom the defendant claims, but the fact as to the parol division has been found against the defendant by the jury, and no exception in the record presents the question of the effect of the conveyances on the claim and title of the plaintiffs.

The description of the land in the will is certainly sufficient to pass the land covered by the dwelling house and the old field, but, if altogether void for uncertainty, the title of the plaintiffs would not be affected, because they are the heirs of Blanton, and if no land is described in the will, they would take as heirs as in ease of intestacy.

No error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Blanton v. . Boney, 95 S.E. 361, 175 N.C. 211, 1918 N.C. LEXIS 37 (N.C. 1918).

95 S.E. 361 (Blanton v. . Boney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Taylor v. Taylor
263 S.E.2d 351 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1980)
Armstrong Ex Rel. Martin Ex Rel. Martin v. Armstrong
71 S.E.2d 119 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)
Seawell v. Seawell
65 S.E.2d 369 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1951)
Burchett v. Mason
63 S.E.2d 634 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1951)
Freeman v. . Ramsey
128 S.E. 404 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)
Heirs at Law of Freeman v. Ramsey
189 N.C. 790 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)
Farmers Tobacco Warehouse Co. v. Eastern Carolina Warehouse Corp.
117 S.E. 625 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1923)