Nobles v. . Davenport

116 S.E. 407, 185 N.C. 162, 1923 N.C. LEXIS 43
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMarch 21, 1923
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 116 S.E. 407 (Nobles v. . Davenport) 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
Nobles v. . Davenport, 116 S.E. 407, 185 N.C. 162, 1923 N.C. LEXIS 43 (N.C. 1923).

Opinion

Stacy, J.

Defendant says there is no sufficient evidence appearing on the record from which the jury could find that the deed from S. H. Davenport to his son was intended as a partial advancement and a partial sale. We think there was some evidence to support the verdict,. In 1905 S. H. Davenport and wife made an advancement to their daughter, Mrs. Dennie Nobles, of a 97-acre tract of land. At the same time they executed a deed, intended as an advancement, to their son, William H. Davenport, for a 102-acre tract of land. This latter deed was never registered; so, on 15 November, 1910, another deed was executed for the same property, reciting a consideration of natural love and affection and $700. There was some evidence from which the jury could infer that the $700 was the enhanced value of said property from 1905 to 1910, over and above-the increased value of the advancement made to Mrs. Dennie Nobles in 1905; and that it was the intention of the grantor thus to equalize these advancements.

His Honor charged the jury in almost the identical language of our former opinion. The decision on the first appeal constitutes the law of the case, both in subsequent proceedings in the trial court and on a subsequent appeal here. Harrington v. Rawls, 136 N. C., 65; Gordon v. Collett, 107 N. C., 362.

After a careful perusal of the entire record, we are convinced that the case has been tried in substantial conformity to our previous decision.

No error.

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

Related

Robinson v. . McAlhaney
6 S.E.2d 517 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
Stanback v. . Haywood
196 S.E. 844 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
McGraw v. Southern Railway Co.
184 S.E. 31 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)
Reynolds Ex Rel. Cannon v. Reynolds
182 S.E. 341 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)
Ferrell v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
181 S.E. 327 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)
Western Carolina Power Co. v. Yount
179 S.E. 804 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)
Masten v. . Texas Co.
169 S.E. 158 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)
Tinsley v. City of Winston-Salem
140 S.E. 192 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1927)
Winston Brick Manufacturing Co. v. Hodgins
135 S.E. 466 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1926)
Strunks v. Southern Railway Co.
125 S.E. 182 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1924)
Ray v. Hill Veneer Co.
124 S.E. 756 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1924)
Pettitt v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
186 N.C. 9 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
116 S.E. 407, 185 N.C. 162, 1923 N.C. LEXIS 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nobles-v-davenport-nc-1923.