Sutton v. . Sutton

110 S.E. 777, 183 N.C. 128, 1922 N.C. LEXIS 218
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMarch 8, 1922
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 110 S.E. 777 (Sutton v. . Sutton) 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
Sutton v. . Sutton, 110 S.E. 777, 183 N.C. 128, 1922 N.C. LEXIS 218 (N.C. 1922).

Opinion

*129 Adams, J.

Drusilla Crawford died seized in fee of a tract of land in Pitt County, leaving four children as ber beirs at law, two of whom were Lydia Crawford and David Sutton. Thereafter, on 11 February, 1921, Lydia Crawford and her husband, J. B. Crawford, executed and delivered to David Sutton a deed conveying Lydia’s interest in said land; and David Sutton and his wife executed a mortgage to Lydia to secure the purchase price. The plaintiffs filed their complaint, alleging that Lydia Crawford, at the time her deed was executed, was mentally incapacitated, and unable to comprehend the significance of her deed; and the defendants filed answers denying the plaintiff’s allegation. A temporary order restraining David Sutton from conveying the land and J. B. Crawford from disposing of the note was issued and made return-r able before Judge Horton. Affidavits were filed, and on the hearing at chambers his Honor heard the proof, found the facts, and dissolved the restraining order, and adjudged that the deed executed by J. B. Crawford and his wife to David Sutton conveyed Lydia’s interest in the land, and that David Sutton is the owner of the interest conveyed.

Upon the facts set forth in the record his Honor properly dissolved the restraining order, and to this extent the judgment is affirmed; but his Honor should not have adjudged that David Sutton is the owner of the land in controversy, or that Lydia’s deed conveyed her interest, because these questions must be disposed of in the final judgment, which will ultimately be determined by the verdict of the jury; and to this extent the judgment is modified.

The cost will be taxed against the appellees.

Modified and affirmed.

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

Related

Hansen v. Edwards
426 P.2d 792 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1967)
Chappell v. Stallings
74 S.E.2d 624 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1953)
Branch v. Board of Education
53 S.E.2d 455 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1949)
Lawhon v. . McArthur
195 S.E. 786 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Dennis v. . Redmond
188 S.E. 807 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)
Springs v. . Refining Co.
171 S.E. 635 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)
Springs v. Atlantic Refining Co.
205 N.C. 444 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)
Grantham v. . Nunn
124 S.E. 309 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
110 S.E. 777, 183 N.C. 128, 1922 N.C. LEXIS 218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutton-v-sutton-nc-1922.