Peel v. Peel

196 N.C. 782
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided March 27, 1929·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

BeogdeN, J.

The plaintiffs based their cause of action upon the covenants and stipulations contained in the deed and not upon the notes. Hence the principle of law with respect to gifts inter vivos does not apply. The-correct rule governing the present controversy is stated in Herring v. Lumber Co., 163 N. C., 481, 79 S. E., 876, as follows: “It is very generally held here and elsewhere that the grantee in a deed poll, containing covenants and stipulations purporting to bind him, becomes bound for their performance, though he does not execute the deed.” Maynard v. Moore, 76 N. C., 158; Fort v. Allen, 110 N. C., 183, 14 S. E., 685; Helms v. Helms, 135 N. C., 164, 47 S. E., 415; Guilford v. Porter, 167 N. C., 366, 83 S. E., 564; Hill v. Hill, 176 N. C., 194, 96 S. E., 958; Adams v. Wilson, 191 N. C., 392, 131 S. E., 760.

The facts disclosed by the record bring the case at bar within the established rule, and the judgment rendered is approved.

No error.

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

Peel v. Peel, 196 N.C. 782 (N.C. 1929).

196 N.C. 782 (Peel v. Peel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

First Carolinas Joint Stock Land Bank of Columbia v. Page
171 S.E. 68 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)
Coxe v. . Dillard
148 S.E. 545 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1929)