WALLER
v.
WALLER ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the plaintiff's claims were correctly dismissed as the evidence did not support a parol trust and the plaintiff's rights were lost due to non-payment and delay.
Plaintiff brought an action to establish a parol trust in a parcel of realty. The case was tried by a judge without a jury, who made findings of fact …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Conclusions Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This was a civil action, brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, to establish a parol trust in a certain designated parcel of realty.
The case was tried by the District Judge, sittihg as a) chajncellor without a jury. The District Judge, after hearing the evidence, made findings of fact and set out appropriate conclusions of law. These, on all important points, were uniformly unfavorable to the plaintiff-appellant herein.
Conclusion of law number one was:
“The title of A. E. Waller to tract No. 3 was not impressed with any trust in favor of J. B. Waller, as alleged in the complaint.”
Conclusion of law number two' was:
“Whatever rights accrued to J. B. Waller by virtue of A. E. Waller’s promise to convey tract No. 3 to him upon his payment of his portion of the original indebtedness have been lost, and the plaintiff is barred of any right of action thereon by reason of his failure -to make any. payment tO' A. E. Waller, and by his delay in bringing this action for more than ten years after the registration of deed for tract No. 3 from A. E. Waller to J. M. Turner and Neva Turner.”
These conclusions, which are more than ample to .dispose of the case, were, we think, clearly correct and they found ample support in the evidence.
The judgment of the District Court is accordingly affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (30 total)
-
United States v. Nelson, 419 F.2d 1237 (9th Cir. 1969)
-
Bernardino Chirez Hernandez v. United States, 300 F.2d 114 (9th Cir. 1962)
-
Himmelfarb v. United States, 175 F.2d 924 (9th Cir. 1949)
Previewing 3 of 30 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence