Bray v. Carter

5 Citing cases

  1. Guano Co. v. Colwell

    98 S.E. 535 (N.C. 1919)   Cited 15 times
    In Guano Co. v. Colwell, 177 N.C. 218, 98 S.E. 535 (1919), the Court stated that absent a contract between the husband and wife the husband was entitled to no share in the crops or profits from his wife's farm, the presumption being that he was working gratuitously to contribute to the support of the family.

    The husband did not give any lien upon the crop and had no right to do so. Rawlings v. Neal, 122 N.C. 173; Bray v. Carter, 115 N.C. 16. The plaintiffs have no right to follow the fund which was the purpose of this action.

  2. Thompson v. Coats

    93 S.E. 724 (N.C. 1917)   Cited 3 times

    No inconvenience can result from such a ruling, as it is quite easy for a party making advances to require that she be joined as a party to the mortgage." See, also, Rawlings v. Neal, 122 N.C. 175; Evans v. Cullen, 122 N.C. 55; Bray v. Carter, 115 N.C. 16. Bazemore v. Mountain, 121 N.C. 60, differs essentially from this case.

  3. Mullen v. Canal Co.

    19 S.E. 106 (N.C. 1894)   Cited 3 times

    Action dismissed. Cited: Long v. Ins. Co., post, 469; Mullen v. Canal Co., 115 N.C. 16; Lemly v. Ellis, 143 N.C. 208, 212. (11)

  4. Hudson v. Jordan

    110 N.C. 250 (N.C. 1892)   Cited 6 times

    Petition denied. Cited: Tucker v. Tucker, post, 334; Moore v. Beaman, 112 N.C. 561; Mullen v. Canal Co., 115 N.C. 16; Weisel v. Cobb, 122 N.C. 70; Hodgin v. Bank, 125 N.C. 503, 511. (251)

  5. Hovsepian v. Eskender

    69 Cal.App. 379 (Cal. Ct. App. 1924)   Cited 4 times

    It applies to a mortgagor in possession. ( McAllister v. Lawlor, 32 Mo. App. 91; Aultman Taylor Co. v. O'Dowd, 73 Minn. 58 [72 Am. St. Rep. 603, 75 N.W. 756]; Bray v. Carter, 115 N.C. 16 [ 20 S.E. 164].) It applies to a vendee in possession.