Robert Hunt Parker

The case concerned a charitable trust established by a 1930 deed conveying real property to Wachovia Bank as trustee for the benefit of the Alexander Children's Center, which included a restriction against alienation of the land. The central issues were whether that restriction was valid and whether a court of equity could authorize a sale of the property. The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that the restraint on alienation was void as against public policy because the deed treated the property as investment land to generate income rather than dedicating it to a specific charitable use on the premises. The court reasoned that while charitable trusts may exist in perpetuity and restraints are generally upheld when tied to a precise purpose, no such justification applied here, allowing equitable modification to sell the asset if beneficial to the trust.

property

This case involved a claim under the North Carolina State Tort Claims Act by a six-year-old child injured while exiting a school bus operated by the Wayne County Board of Education. The Industrial Commission awarded damages, which the Superior Court initially reversed but the Supreme Court ultimately affirmed. The court held that omitting the specific employee's name from the initial affidavit was not a fatal jurisdictional defect when cured by later stipulation identifying the driver, and that the hearing commissioner could issue a decision based on the full record (including stipulated evidence) absent timely objection. It further reasoned that a child of that age is incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law and that the evidence supported a finding of negligence by the bus driver.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerns a dispute over ownership of North Carolina marshlands and estuarine areas, where the State sought to establish title and alleged obstruction of navigable waters, while defendants counterclaimed title based on thirty years of adverse possession under known boundaries. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' ruling for the defendants, holding that evidence of activities such as docks, fishing, leasing, and placing crates or signs failed to show hostile, exclusive possession for the full statutory period, especially in light of stipulations regarding navigable waters where defendants disclaimed ownership of the bottoms. The court applied the requirement that adverse possession must be under a claim of exclusive right and found the evidence insufficient to reach a jury on the counterclaim. It affirmed the determination that defendants had not obstructed navigable waters but remanded the case for a jury trial on whether the State holds title and is entitled to possession.

propertyenvironmentprocedure

This case involves a negligence claim arising from a car accident, in which plaintiff Anderson sued co-defendants Jenkins and Robinson. Jenkins filed a cross-claim seeking indemnity or contribution from Robinson, alleging that Robinson's negligence or breach of warranty regarding defective brakes was the sole cause of the accident. The court affirmed the dismissal of Jenkins' cross-claim, holding that indemnity is available only where a defendant's liability is passive or derivative of another's active negligence, which was not the situation here. If Jenkins were found liable, it would stem from his own active negligence in driving or failing to inspect the vehicle, precluding any right to indemnity. The court also ruled that a breach-of-warranty cross-action between co-defendants is not properly litigated in the underlying tort suit.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a defendant convicted of raping a woman after offering to change her flat tire, then directing her to a remote area and threatening her life to compel intercourse. On appeal, the defendant challenged the denial of his motion for nonsuit, the admissibility of a police lineup identification, and alleged errors in the trial judge's instructions to the jury. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the State was sufficient to support the verdict, that the lineup identification was admissible because it had an independent origin from the victim's earlier identification of the defendant, and that the jury instructions were fair and impartial without expressing any opinion on the evidence.

criminal law

The case involved the appeal of defendant Edward Theodore Ray's conviction for the rape of Mrs. Jeane Daily in Durham, North Carolina, on December 7, 1966. Ray, an indigent defendant, challenged the admission of evidence including a cigarette lighter, a sweater with bloodstains and hair, and cigarettes, claiming they resulted from unlawful searches and seizures, and raised procedural issues related to his appeal in forma pauperis. The court affirmed the conviction, finding no error. It reasoned that the evidence was lawfully obtained and properly admitted as it corroborated the victim's account without violating constitutional protections, and all assignments of error were overruled.

criminal lawprocedure