The facts in this case have been stated somewhat fully because of the nature of the legal questions involved. The appellants contend (1) that Judge Nettles committed error by placing a too literal and too rigid interpretation on the requirement that a cash deposit accompany an advance bid (G.S. § 1-339.25(a), (2) that the offer of the appellants to permit their interests in the land to stand as a...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
