Fogleman v. . Allison

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Fogleman v. . Allison

132 S.E. 926, 191 N.C. 825, 1926 N.C. LEXIS 193

DecidedApril 7, 1926

StatusPublished

This text of 132 S.E. 926 (Fogleman v. . Allison) 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

Fogleman v. . Allison, 132 S.E. 926, 191 N.C. 825, 1926 N.C. LEXIS 193 (N.C. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

John M. Fogleman, seized of h tract of land, .died intestate, leaving tbe plaintiff and tbe defendant bis only beirs at law. In April, 1924, tbe plaintiff brought a proceeding before tbe clerk to have tbe land sold for partition. A commissioner sold tbe land under order of tbe court and made bis report, but afterwards there were two other sales. Tbe report of tbe third sale was confirmed 28 December, 1925. Tbe purchaser demanded of tbe defendant tbe possession of tbe property and subsequently filed a petition for a writ of possession and tbe writ was issued on 17 February, 1926. Soon thereafter tbe defendant filed a petition asking that tbe order of confirmation be rescinded and tbe writ of possession recalled. Upon affidavits filed in tbe cause bis Honor found as facts that tbe property bad been duly advertised and sold, that tbe sale bad been confirmed and a deed made to tbe purchaser, and that tbe purchaser bad conveyed tbe land as security for borrowed money, and upon these facts tbe petitioner’s motion was denied. In tbis we find nothing of which tbe defendant can justly complain. Tbe judgment is

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

John M. Fogleman, seized of h tract of land, .died intestate, leaving tbe plaintiff and tbe defendant bis only beirs at law. In April, 1924, tbe plaintiff brought a proceeding before tbe clerk to have tbe land sold for partition. A commissioner sold tbe land under order of tbe court and made bis report, but afterwards there were two other sales. Tbe report of tbe third sale was confirmed 28 December, 1925. Tbe purchaser demanded of tbe defendant tbe possession of tbe property and subsequently filed a petition for a writ of possession and tbe writ was issued on 17 February, 1926. Soon thereafter tbe defendant filed a petition asking that tbe order of confirmation be rescinded and tbe writ of possession recalled. Upon affidavits filed in tbe cause bis Honor found as facts that tbe property bad been duly advertised and sold, that tbe sale bad been confirmed and a deed made to tbe purchaser, and that tbe purchaser bad conveyed tbe land as security for borrowed money, and upon these facts tbe petitioner’s motion was denied. In tbis we find nothing of which tbe defendant can justly complain. Tbe judgment is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 S.E. 926, 191 N.C. 825, 1926 N.C. LEXIS 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fogleman-v-allison-nc-1926.