Huggins v. Dement
188 S.E.2d 898, 281 N.C. 314, 1972 N.C. LEXIS 1064
This text of 188 S.E.2d 898 (Huggins v. Dement) 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
Huggins v. Dement, 188 S.E.2d 898, 281 N.C. 314, 1972 N.C. LEXIS 1064 (N.C. 1972).
Opinion
Harry Lee HUGGINS and wife, Elizabeth Huggins
v.
Russell W. DEMENT, Jr., Substitute Trustee, et al.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Jacob W. Todd, for plaintiffs.
James R. Rogers, III, for defendant Finance Co.
Phillip O. Redwine, for defendant Dement.
Hatch, Little, Bunn, Jones & Few, for defendant appellee, Betty Lou Britt.
Petition of Betty Lou Britt, Defendant Appellee, to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question. 13 N.C. App. 673, 187 S.E.2d 412.
Allowed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Huggins v. Dement
187 S.E.2d 412 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1972)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
188 S.E.2d 898, 281 N.C. 314, 1972 N.C. LEXIS 1064, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huggins-v-dement-nc-1972.