majority"> ClaeksoN, J.

In the record is the following: “A jury trial was waived and the entire matter submitted to the court to determine the rights of the parties.”

In Blackburn v. Woodmen of the World, 219 N. C., 602 (606), we find: “The court below, whom it was agreed could find the facts, found the facts contrary to defendant’s contentions. It was bound by the findings of fact by the court below to the same extent as if a jury had so found.”

We think, on the facts found by the court below, there being competent evidence to sustain them, that there is no error in the judgment. The property in controversy is real estate. If there was a forfeiture the property would descend to the heirs at law of John M. Privette. To sell land to make assets to pay debts, the method is set out in the statutes as follows:

N. C. Code, 1939 (Michie), sec. 19: “The petition, which must be verified by the oath of the applicant, shall set forth, as far as can be ascertained: 1. The amount of debts outstanding against the estate. 2. The value of the personal estate, and the application thereof. 3. A description of all the legal and equitable real estate of the decedent, with the estimated value of the respective portions or lots. 4. The names, ages and residences, if known, of the devisees and heirs at law of the decedent.”

Section 80, in part: “No order to sell real estate shall be granted till the heirs or devisees of the decedent have been made parties to the proceeding, by service of summons, either personally or by publication, as required by law,” etc.

In Neighbors v. Evans, 210 N. C., 550 (553), is the following: “In McNeill v. McBryde, 112 N. C., 408 (411-12), it is said: ‘We think, however, that the petition is deficient in that it does not comply with section 1431 of the Code (now C. S., 19), which requires that it shall set forth “the value of the personal estate and the application thereof.” *346 It simply states that the personal estate “is wholly insufficient to pay bis (intestate’s) debts and the costs and charges of administration.” The purpose of the statute, in requiring the particulars therein mentioned to be stated in the petition, was to enable the court to see whether a sale was necessary; but the present allegation wholly fails to give any such information. It is important that the requirements of the statute should be observed, and we must sustain the demurrer upon this ground. Shields v. McDowell, 82 N. C., 137.’ ” Watson v. Peterson, 216 N. C., 343 (345).

The provision in the deed was a condition subsequent. Helms v. Helms, 135 N. C., 164—rehearing 137 N. C., 206. At page 207, we find: “Then follow the words, if inserted, “If he fails to support, this deed is to be void.’ These are apt words to create a condition subsequent. If no title was to pass, then there was no necessity for declaring that the deed should be void.” At pp. 208-9, it is written: “We find in 13 Cye., 689, the law laid down as held by the Supreme Court of the United States as late as 1878: 'If the condition subsequent is broken, that did not ipso facto produce a reverter of the title. The estate continued in full force until the proper step was taken to consummate the forfeiture. This could be done only by the grantor during his lifetime and after his death by those in privity of blood with him. In the meantime, only the right of action subsisted and that could not be conveyed so as to vest the right to sue in a stranger.’ Rush v. R. R., 97 U. S., 613; 1 Jones on Conveyances, 728; Nicoll v. Railroad, supra (12 N. Y., 121), where the question is discussed and decided. But where a fee simple without a reservation of rents is granted upon a condition subsequent, as in this case, there is no estate remaining in the grantor. There is simply a possibility of reverter, but that is no estate. There is not even a possibility coupled with an interest, but a bare possibility alone. It has been said that such possibilities were assignable in equity, but those were interests of a very different character. Chancellor Kent says : 'A court of equity will never lend its aid to divest an estate for the breach of a condition subsequent.’ Kent Com., 130.”

In Brittain v. Taylor, 168 N. C., 271 (273), it is stated: “The stipulation in the deed for support and maintenance is not like those found in the cases to which the learned counsel for defendant has referred in his brief and argument, such as Helms v. Helms, 135 N. C., 164; McCardle v. Kennedy, 92 Ga., 198 (44 Am. St., 85); and Pownal v. Taylor, 10 Leigh, 172 (34 Am. Dec., 725), Avhere the stipulation merely for support and maintenance of the grantor, or someone else, with no words of strict condition or forfeiture was held to be nothing more than a covenant, for the breach of which damages could be recovered, and constituted a charge upon the land. But this provision is not of that kind, for it expressly *347 stated in tbe deed that if the grantee failed to comply with the requirement of support and maintenance, the deed should be 'null and void.’ This is a condition subsequent by its very terms, and also according to the authorities. . . . (p. 273). The language of the deed under consideration leaves no doubt as to what the parties intended. It is plain, intelligible, and explicit. The grantor conveyed the estate upon the condition that she should he supported, and provided, in order to coerce its performance, that if the grantor failed to do so the deed should be void and of no effect, which means no more or less than the estate should cease in the grantee and revest in her; for if the deed becomes void, the grantee can no longer take under it, and the estate cannot be in abeyance, it must vest in the grantor. . . . (pp. 276-7). It is unquestionably true that not only the grantor, during his life, but his heirs, or privies in blood, after his death, may take advantage of the breach of a condition subsequent, and bring suit for the land or to declare the estate forfeited. Sheppard’s Touchstone, 125; Tiedeman on Beal Property, sec. 207; Den ex Dem. Southard v. Central R. Co., 26 N. J. L., 21; Hooper v. Cummings, 45 Me., 359; Avelyn v. Ward, 1 Vesey, Sr., 422; 4 Kent Comm., 127; 2 Cruise Digest, ch. 2, sec. 49. Ruch v. Rock Island, 97 U. S., at p. 696, held that 'If the conditions subsequent were broken, it did not ipso facto produce a reversion of the title. The estate continued in full force until the proper step was taken to consummate the forfeiture. This could be done only by the grantor during his lifetime and after his death by those in privity of blood with him.’ . . . (p. 277). It is not necessary to decide whether anyone other than the grantor and his heirs can take advantage of a forfeiture arising from the breach of a condition subsequent, as the plaintiffs in this case are the heirs of the grantor, Margaret Taylor.” Huntley v. McBrayer, 169 N. C., 75.

The only question on this aspect: "Was there sufficient evidence to show a violation of the condition subsequent ? "We think not. The court below found the facts on competent evidence. “The sanatorium was advised of the conveyance hereinbefore mentioned, but no effort was made on the part of the sanatorium, and no effort was made on the part of the said Privette, to have said conveyance canceled, during the lifetime of the said Privette, and the court is unable to find that Privette ever did request that the property be reconveyed to him or that there had been a failure in consideration.”

C. S., sec. 159, is-not applicable under the record facts in this case.

On the entire record we think the facts found by the court below on competent evidence supports the judgment rendered.

For the reasons given, the judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress