Combs v. . Paul

*790 Stacy, C. J. On tbe bearing tbe title offered was properly made to depend upon tbe validity of tbe following restrictive clause in a deed conveying tbe property in question from David J. Roberts to Mary D. Roberts and John A. Roberts, ber busband, for life, remainder to Allen Roberts in fee, executed 14 May, 1914, said deed forming a link in plaintiff’s paper chain of title: “Tbis deed is made witb tbe distinct understanding tbat said Allen Roberts shall not dispose of said lot during tbe life of either said Mary D. or John A. Roberts, by any means whatsoever, whether be be authorized to do so by said Mary D. Roberts and John A. Roberts by deed or otherwise, it being tbe distinct understanding and meaning hereof tbat said lot shall be held for tbe term of their natural life of Mary D. and John A. Roberts and shall not be reconveyed until both are dead.” On 21 January, 1916, all tbe grantees in tbe above-mentioned deed reconveyed tbe property described therein to their original grantor, David J. Roberts, by full warranty deed, and, by mesne conveyances, tbe present plaintiffs are now tbe owners in fee of said bouse and lot, unless their title is affected by tbe restriction contained in tbe deed above mentioned. His Honor held tbe restriction void, because in restraint of alienation, but, if not invalid for tbis reason, tbat it was revoked- by tbe re-conveyance of 21 January, 1916. Tbe judgment must be upheld on authority of Latimer v. Waddell, 119 N. C., 370., An absolute restraint on alienation, though for a limited time, annexed to a grant in fee, is void. Wool v. Fleetwood, 136 N. C., 460. Affirmed.