Godwin v. Bank of Aurora

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Godwin v. Bank of Aurora

165 S.E. 927, 203 N.C. 845, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 106

DecidedOctober 5, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 165 S.E. 927 (Godwin v. Bank of Aurora) 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

Godwin v. Bank of Aurora, 165 S.E. 927, 203 N.C. 845, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 106 (N.C. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Mary Gaskins was the personal representative of her deceased husband, W. H. Gaskins, but died before completing the administration of his estate. W. A. Thompson was appointed administrator, d. b. n. of W. H. Gaskins’ estate, and was paid the deposit in question. The case turns on whether the money on deposit with the defendant bank at the time of Mary Gaskins’ death belonged to her individually or was held by her as the personal representative of her husband’s estate. The evidence is equivocal, and requires the intervention of a jury to determine the issue.

Beversed.

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

Per Curiam.

Mary Gaskins was the personal representative of her deceased husband, W. H. Gaskins, but died before completing the administration of his estate. W. A. Thompson was appointed administrator, d. b. n. of W. H. Gaskins’ estate, and was paid the deposit in question. The case turns on whether the money on deposit with the defendant bank at the time of Mary Gaskins’ death belonged to her individually or was held by her as the personal representative of her husband’s estate. The evidence is equivocal, and requires the intervention of a jury to determine the issue.

Beversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 S.E. 927, 203 N.C. 845, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/godwin-v-bank-of-aurora-nc-1932.