Paschal v. . Paschal

147 S.E. 680, 197 N.C. 40, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 140
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedApril 10, 1929
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 147 S.E. 680 (Paschal v. . Paschal) 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
Paschal v. . Paschal, 147 S.E. 680, 197 N.C. 40, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 140 (N.C. 1929).

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The transaction between the deceased and her son, relative to the insurance policy in question, seems to have been a joint enterprise. Some of the premiums were paid by the parent, some by the child. Both benefited thereby. We think the trial court correctly held that such payments on the part of the mother, under the fact situation disclosed by the record, could not be regarded as gifts or advancements to the son.

An advancement may be defined as a gift in prcesenti or provision made by a parent on behalf of a child for the purpose of advancing said *41 child in life, and thus to enable him to anticipate his inheritance to the extent of such advancement. C. S., 1654, rule 2; Lunsford v. Yarbrough, 189 N. C., 476, 127 S. E., 426; Nobles v. Davenport, 183 N. C., 207, 111 S. E., 180; Thompson v. Smith, 160 N. C., 256, 75 S. E., 1010; Kyle v. Conrad, 25 W. Va., p. 774.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Harrelson v. . Gooden
50 S.E.2d 901 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1948)
Parker v. . Eason
195 S.E. 360 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Wolfe v. . Galloway
190 S.E. 213 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
Allen v. . Allen
184 S.E. 485 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)
Edgerton v. . Perkins
158 S.E. 197 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
147 S.E. 680, 197 N.C. 40, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paschal-v-paschal-nc-1929.