¶1 The plaintiffs do not allege, and there is no evidence tending to show, that the conveyance from F. J. Walker and wife to F. B. Walker was a deed of gift. On the contrary, the testimony tends to show that it was supported by a valuable consideration. Hence the delay in recording the deed did not invalidate the instrument.
¶2 Nor is it contended that any agreement was made at or before the time the deed was delivered respecting the quality of defendant’s title or the nature of his seizure other than such as is disclosed by the deed itself. Any such agreement attempting to bind defendant to stand seized for the benefit of the grantor, if made, would be unenforceable. Gaylord v. Gaylord, 150 N.C. 222, 63 S.E. 1028; Bass v. Bass, 229 N.C. 171. *56 The delivery of the deed consummated the transaction and vested title in defendant free of any claim of right of the grantor. Turlington v. Neighbors, 222 N.C. 694, 24 S.E. 2d 648.
¶3 The plaintiffs ground their action on an oral agreement by defendant to reconvey the premises to E. J. Walker, by the destruction of bis unrecorded deed, and bis alleged fraudulent misrepresentations in respect to the loss of the deed and bis consequent inability to destroy it. He agreed to revest title in bis father by destroying bis unrecorded deed to the locus. This be failed to do. Now be should be compelled to comply with bis agreement or else be declared trustee for the use and benefit of plaintiffs. So they contend. Their position finds no support in law or equity.
¶4 The contract to reconvey, if made, was voidable at the election of defendant. Arps v. Davenport, 183 N.C. 72, 110 S.E. 580; Coley v. Dalrymple, 225 N.C. 67, 33 S.E. 2d 477; Westmoreland v. Lowe, 225 N.C. 553, 35 S.E. 2d 613; Wright v. Allred, 226 N.C. 113, 37 S.E. 2d 107. Upon bis denial of the contract and plea of the statute of frauds, it became wholly unenforceable. Harvey v. Linker, 226 N.C. 711, 40 S.E. 2d 202.
¶5 In disavowing the contract and refusing to abide by its terms, defendant was exercising a legal right and bis exercise of a legal right in a lawful manner cannot be made the basis of a charge of fraud such as would impress a trust upon bis title to the property.
¶6 Even if we accept plaintiffs’ version of the transaction, defendant’s promissory representations created no right in equity and cannot serve to vest in plaintiffs any interest in the land in the form of any type of trust known to equity jurisprudence. Certainly they are insufficient to constitute a conveyance recognized in law. Real estate is not conveyed in that manner.
¶7 Lefkowitz v. Silver, 182 N.C. 339, 109 S.E. 56, and other authorities of like import relied on by plaintiffs are not in point. Here no title passed to defendant by virtue of bis representations, and be did not take title subject to any equity thereby created.
¶8 The judgment below is
¶9 Affirmed.