Page 724 |
Previous | 724 of 843 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
696 COURT OF APPEALS [20
persons authorized to grant such authority, and . . . [this] execu-tion
and delivery was not thereafter ratified by the Board of
Directors of the Corporation as its act and deed."
Furthermore, the trial court found as a fact (1) that no
valuable consideration passed from defendants Gale and Nancy
Lyon to plaintiff to support the transfer of the ten acre tract
of land to them; (2) that the attestation by the Secretary of the
plaintiff corporation of the instruments purporting to convey
the ten acre tract of land was made "at the request of, and in
reliance upon his confidence in Gale W. Lyon without knowledge
of their contents or legal effect . . . " ; (3) that none of the
officers or directors, other than Gale W. Lyon, or any other
persons connected with the plaintiff corporation had any knowl-edge
of the execution and purported conveyance of the ten acre
tract described in the complaint to Gale W. Lyon and wife,
Nancy H. Lyon, until the same was discovered by chance, after
these instruments had been recorded in the Stokes County
Public Registry in 1971; and that said execution of said instru-ment
was done and maintained in secrecy, and with the inten-tion
of concealment of the entire transaction; and (4) that no
ratification, recognition of or acquiescence in the action of Gale
W. Lyon in executing the instruments purporting to convey the
said ten acre tract of land described in the complaint, has ever
been made by the directors, officers, or any other body or
persons authorized to act for the plaintiff corporation.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the trial court
concluded "[tlhat the defendants Gale W. Lyon and Nancy H.
Lyon have failed to show that the conveyance to them was fairly
and openly authorized, that it was executed for an adequate con-sideration
and that it is fair and free from oppression, imposi-tion
and actual or constructive fraud, and have failed to show a
full disclosure and fair dealing in respect of the transaction of
conveyance, and have failed to overcome and rebut the presump-tion
against the validity of the conveyance . . . . 9,
From the judgment entered setting aside the deeds in ques-tion
and declaring them null and void, the defendants appealed.
Harry Rockwell and John R. Hughes for plaintiff appellee.
William L. Nelson for defendant appellant.
Object Description
| Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports [v.020, November 28, 1973 - February 20, 1974] |
| Creator | North Carolina. Court of Appeals. |
| Date | 1974 |
| Subjects | Law reports, digests, etc.--North Carolina; Court records--North Carolina |
| Place | North Carolina, United States |
| Description | Volume 20, November 28, 1973 - February 20, 1974. Cited as 20 N.C.App. The North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports are the official report of opinions of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Includes cases and other information about the courts of North Carolina. |
| Publisher | Court of Appeals of North Carolina |
| Agency-Current | North Carolina Court of Appeals, Judicial Department |
| Rights | State Document see http://digital.ncdcr.gov/u?/p249901coll22,63754 |
| Collection | North Carolina State Documents Collection. State Library of North Carolina |
| Type | Text |
| Language | English |
| Format | Reports; Legal documents |
| Digital Characteristics-A | 34.5 MB; 842 p. |
| Serial Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports |
| Digital Collection | North Carolina Digital State Documents Collection |
| Digital Format | application/pdf |
| Pres File Name-M | pubs_serial_courtofappealsreports_vol_020.pdf |
| Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_law\images_master\ |
| OCLC Number-Original | 1681248 |
Description
| Title | Page 724 |
| Full Text | 696 COURT OF APPEALS [20 persons authorized to grant such authority, and . . . [this] execu-tion and delivery was not thereafter ratified by the Board of Directors of the Corporation as its act and deed." Furthermore, the trial court found as a fact (1) that no valuable consideration passed from defendants Gale and Nancy Lyon to plaintiff to support the transfer of the ten acre tract of land to them; (2) that the attestation by the Secretary of the plaintiff corporation of the instruments purporting to convey the ten acre tract of land was made "at the request of, and in reliance upon his confidence in Gale W. Lyon without knowledge of their contents or legal effect . . . " ; (3) that none of the officers or directors, other than Gale W. Lyon, or any other persons connected with the plaintiff corporation had any knowl-edge of the execution and purported conveyance of the ten acre tract described in the complaint to Gale W. Lyon and wife, Nancy H. Lyon, until the same was discovered by chance, after these instruments had been recorded in the Stokes County Public Registry in 1971; and that said execution of said instru-ment was done and maintained in secrecy, and with the inten-tion of concealment of the entire transaction; and (4) that no ratification, recognition of or acquiescence in the action of Gale W. Lyon in executing the instruments purporting to convey the said ten acre tract of land described in the complaint, has ever been made by the directors, officers, or any other body or persons authorized to act for the plaintiff corporation. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the trial court concluded "[tlhat the defendants Gale W. Lyon and Nancy H. Lyon have failed to show that the conveyance to them was fairly and openly authorized, that it was executed for an adequate con-sideration and that it is fair and free from oppression, imposi-tion and actual or constructive fraud, and have failed to show a full disclosure and fair dealing in respect of the transaction of conveyance, and have failed to overcome and rebut the presump-tion against the validity of the conveyance . . . . 9, From the judgment entered setting aside the deeds in ques-tion and declaring them null and void, the defendants appealed. Harry Rockwell and John R. Hughes for plaintiff appellee. William L. Nelson for defendant appellant. |
