Carroll M. Williamson, Jr. v. Evelyn Byrd Williamson

Fourth Circuit

Carroll M. Williamson, Jr. v. Evelyn Byrd Williamson

547 F.2d 811

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 17, 1977

Docket76-1543

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 547 F.2d 811 (Carroll M. Williamson, Jr. v. Evelyn Byrd Williamson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carroll M. Williamson, Jr. v. Evelyn Byrd Williamson, 547 F.2d 811 (4th Cir. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Carroll Mac Williamson sued his half sister, Evelyn Byrd Williamson, in the district court to set aside a family agreement that determined the boundary line between lands inherited under the will of their father. In a carefully prepared opinion, 407 F.Supp. 370 (E.D.Va.1976), the district judge held that the boundary-line agreement was valid as a family settlement of a dispute over the interpretation of the will and that the agreement, under Virginia law applicable to this diversity jurisdiction case, effectively conveyed any interest which Carrol] Mac Williamson may have had to the tract in dispute and effectively barred the plaintiff from asserting claim to the property. We agree, and affirm for the reasons stated by Judge Clarke.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

Carroll Mac Williamson sued his half sister, Evelyn Byrd Williamson, in the district court to set aside a family agreement that determined the boundary line between lands inherited under the will of their father. In a carefully prepared opinion, 407 F.Supp. 370 (E.D.Va.1976), the district judge held that the boundary-line agreement was valid as a family settlement of a dispute over the interpretation of the will and that the agreement, under Virginia law applicable to this diversity jurisdiction case, effectively conveyed any interest which Carrol] Mac Williamson may have had to the tract in dispute and effectively barred the plaintiff from asserting claim to the property. We agree, and affirm for the reasons stated by Judge Clarke.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

547 F.2d 811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carroll-m-williamson-jr-v-evelyn-byrd-williamson-ca4-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack