Nobles v. . Davenport
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Robinson v. . McAlhaney (N.C. 1940)
- Stanback v. . Haywood (N.C. 1938)
- McGraw v. Southern Railway Co. (N.C. 1936)
- Western Carolina Power Co. v. Yount (N.C. 1935)
- Reynolds Ex Rel. Cannon v. Reynolds (N.C. 1935)
- Ferrell v. Metropolitan Life Insurance (N.C. 1935)
- Masten v. . Texas Co. (N.C. 1933)
- Tinsley v. City of Winston-Salem (N.C. 1927)
- Winston Brick Manufacturing Co. v. Hodgins (N.C. 1926)
- Strunks v. Southern Railway Co. (N.C. 1924)
- Ray v. Hill Veneer Co. (N.C. 1924)
- Pettitt v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad (N.C. 1923)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.