Durner v. . Hood, Comr. of Banks

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Durner v. . Hood, Comr. of Banks

175 S.E. 717, 207 N.C. 856, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 510

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 19, 1934

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 175 S.E. 717 (Durner v. . Hood, Comr. of Banks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Durner v. . Hood, Comr. of Banks, 175 S.E. 717, 207 N.C. 856, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 510 (N.C. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Civil action to revoke gratuitous or voluntary trust, which, it is alleged, has proven to be ill-advised, improvident, and impossible of fulfillment.

From a decree terminating the trust, it appearing that the allegations of the petition are abundantly supported by the evidence and so found by the court, the Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Company, as it feels in duty bound to do, appeals, assigning errors. Affirmed on authority of Bell v. McCoin, 184 N.C. 117, 113 S.E. 561. The cases of McRae v. Trust Co., 199 N.C. 714, 155 S.E. 614, Stanbackv. Bank, 197 N.C. 292, 148 S.E. 313, and Anderson v. Wilkins, 142 N.C. 154,55 S.E. 272, are also cited by petitioner as supporting in tendency the judgment.

Affirmed.

SCHENCK, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

Civil action to revoke gratuitous or voluntary trust, which, it is alleged, has proven to be ill-advised, improvident, and impossible of fulfillment.

From a decree terminating the trust, it appearing that the allegations of the petition are abundantly supported by the evidence and so found by the court, the Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Company, as it feels in duty bound to do, appeals, assigning errors. Affirmed on authority of Bell v. McCoin, 184 N.C. 117, 113 S.E. 561. The cases of McRae v. Trust Co., 199 N.C. 714, 155 S.E. 614, Stanbackv. Bank, 197 N.C. 292, 148 S.E. 313, and Anderson v. Wilkins, 142 N.C. 154,55 S.E. 272, are also cited by petitioner as supporting in tendency the judgment.

Affirmed.

SCHENCK, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 S.E. 717, 207 N.C. 856, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/durner-v-hood-comr-of-banks-nc-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack