# Lamb v. . Smith

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · April 19, 1939 · 215 N.C. 463

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3646472

## Case

- **Full name:** HUBERT LAMB v. L. C. SMITH, Executor of LESSIE ROBINSON, Deceased, and ISABELLA ROBINSON and CHARLIE ROBINSON
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** April 19, 1939
- **Citations:** 215 N.C. 463; 2 S.E.2d 361; 1939 N.C. LEXIS 292
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** PER CURIAM.
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3646472

## Opinion text

Per Curiam.
At the close of plaintiff’s evidence, the court below on motion of the defendants, rendered judgment as in case of nonsuit against plaintiff. C. S., 567. In this we can see no error.
After a careful review of the evidence, we think it too vague and indefinite to be construed as a contract or to give plaintiff a cause of action against defendants. What was said as to mutual wills was no contract, but was evidence of an intention performed by neither. There was no meeting of the minds that the one that outlived the other would get the property.
As was said in
Brown v. Williams,
196 N. C., 247 (250) : “There is nothing to indicate, in the expressions made by defendant’s testator, any certain or definite promise or contract, either express or implied, to make a testamentary provision in his will in favor of plaintiff. The
*465
expressions were not even made to plaintiff, but to otters. It was an appreciation and intention, but not an obligation.
Dodson v. McAdams,
96 N. C., 149 ;
Avitt v. Smith,
120 N. C., 392 .”
We think the
Brown case, supra,
similar to the present action. In the judgment we can see no error.
Affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3646472. Public record. Not legal advice.