Shore v. Norfolk Nat. Bank Of Commerce
| Decision Date | 27 February 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 101.,101. |
| Citation | 178 S.E. 572,207 N.C. 798 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | SHORE et al. v. NORFOLK NAT. BANK OF COMMERCE et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Nash County; Devin, Judge.
Action by Beulah S. Thomas and others against the Norfolk National Bank of Commerce, the State Planters' Bank & Trust Company, and others. From a judgment adverse to named defendants, they appeal.
Case remanded.
This is an action primarily by the beneficiaries under the will of the late A. E. Shore asking that it be decreed that two certain judgments held by the respective corporate defendants did not constitute liens upon a certain lot of land in the town of Rocky Mount and do not now constitute liens upon a certain trust fund derived from the sale of said lot The plaintiffs allege and contend that A. E. Shore was the owner of said lot at the time of his death and that they are now, by virtue of his will, the owners thereof. The defendants allege and contend that P. C. Shore was the owner of an undivided one-half interest in said lot, and that the judgments held by them against P. C. Shore were liens against said interest and are now liens against the trust fund derived from the sale thereof. The plaintiffs' claim is based upon the allegation that P. C. Shore took title in his name to various tracts of land which were bought with joint funds of a partnership composed of P. C. Shore and A. E. Shore, and subsequently, when it was the purpose to make a division between the partners of said tracts of land, by reason of a mistake in a certain deed only a one-half interest instead of the whole interest in said lot was conveyed to A. B. Shore, and that while the bare legal title to one-half interest in said lot at the time said judgments were docketed was in P. C. Shore, the equitable title to said one-half interest was in A. E. Shore, where likewise was vested the legal title to the other one-half interest
The case came on to be heard at term time, and, by consent of the parties, trial by jury was waived and agreement entered into that the court might find the facts and render judgment based upon its conclusions of law, as provided by sections 568 and 569 of Consolidated Statutes.
From judgment adverse to them, the corporate defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning error.
Spruill & Spruill and S. L. Arrington, all of Rocky Mount for appellant Norfolk Nat Bank of Commerce.
J. P. Bunn, of Rocky Mount, and Cooley & Bone, of Nashville, for appellees.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woodard v. Mordecai
...found; and (3) to enter judgment accordingly. Dailey v. Washington Nat. Insurance Co., 208 N.C. 817, 182 S.E. 332; Shore v. Norfolk Nat. Bank, 207 N.C. 798, 178 S.E. 572. In addition, he must state his findings of fact and conclusions of law separately. Foushee v. Pattershall, 67 N.C. 453. ......
-
Morris v. Wilkins
...448, 85 S.E.2d 596; where, under waiver of jury trial, the court determines the issues of fact, G.S. §§ 1-184, 1-185, Shore v. Norfolk Nat. Bank, 207 N.C. 798, 178 S.E. 572; and in hearing on motion for alimony and expenses pendente lite in an action for divorce, G.S. § 50-15, Dawson v. Daw......
-
In re L.L.
...findings of fact explaining why placement with the Spears is not in L.L.'s best interests. See Shore v. Norfolk Nat'l Bank of Commerce, 207 N.C. 798, 799, 178 S.E. 572, 572-73 (1935) (holding that the trial court must specifically find the facts and cannot simply "indicate from what source ......
-
Arnold v. Ray Charles Enterprises, Inc.
...remand the cause for a finding sufficient to support a judgment. McMillan v. Robeson, 225 N.C. 754, 36 S.E.2d 235; Shore v. Norfolk Nat. Bank, 207 N.C. 798, 178 S.E. 572; Raleigh Banking & Trust Company v. Safety Transit Lines, 198 N.C. 675, 153 S.E. 158. To remand this case for further fin......