Gray v. . Worthington

183 S.E. 731, 209 N.C. 582, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 301
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided February 26, 1936·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The nonsuit is correct on two grounds: First, it appears that the alleged parol agreement is in conflict with the written contract to convey (Ins. Co. v. Morehead, ante, 174) ; and, second, the contract to convey is not enforceable as against purchasers for value who hold prior registered title. C. S., 3309; Combes v. Adams, 150 N. C., 64, 63 S. E., 186; Hood, Comr., v. Macclesfield Co., ante, 280.

This is the only question presented by the appeal.

Affirmed.

Devin, 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

Gray v. . Worthington, 183 S.E. 731, 209 N.C. 582, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 301 (N.C. 1936).

183 S.E. 731 (Gray v. . Worthington) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dulin v. Williams
79 S.E.2d 213 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1953)
State v. . Steen
117 S.E. 793 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1923)