18 Gridley v. Bingham, 51 111. 153; Waterbury v. Sturtevant, 18 Wend. (N. Y.) 353.

19 Van Wyck v. Seward, 18 Wend. (N. Y.) 375; Potter v. Mcdowell. 31 Mo. 62; Hunters v. Waite, 3 Grat. (Va.) 26.

20 Kaine v. Weigley, 22 Pa. St. 179; State v. Evans, 38 Mo. 150.

21 Wadsworth v. Williams, 100 Mass. 126; Williamson v. Wachenheim, 58 Iowa, 277, 12 N. W. 302. Twyne's Case, 3 Coke, 80b. Cf. Tlbbals v. Jacobs. 31 Conr. 428.

22 State Bank v. Whittle, 48 Mich. 1, 11 N. W. 756; Wood v. Clark, 121 111. 359, 12 N. E. 271; Kellog v. Richardson, 19 Fed. 70.

23 Boyd v. De La Montagnie, 73 N. Y. 498; Pratt v. Curtis. 2 Lowell, 87. Fed. Cas. No. 11,375; Gridley v. Watson, 53 111. 193; Baldwin v. Tuttle, 23 lown, 74; Hinde's Lessee v. Longworth, 11 Wheat. 199; Reade v. Livingstone. 3 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 481; In re Ridler, 22 Ch. Div 74. Cf. Freeman v. Pope, 5 Ch. App. 538; Kent v. Riley, L. R. 14 Eq. 190; Salmon v. Bennett, 1 Conn. 525; Winchester v. Charter, 12 Allen (Mass.) 606; Newstead v. Searles, 1 Atk. 265.

Regarded as a valuable consideration.24 Conveyances of the kind we are discussing are voidable only as to existing creditors in most states, though in some other states subsequent creditors are permitted to assail the transaction,25 especially if the conveyance is made on the eve of incurring large obligations, or before embarking on financial risks.26 As to bankrupt and insolvent laws, it can only be said here that any preference attempted to be given one creditor over the others is void,27 but the debtor may convey all of his property to one creditor, instead of making an assignment.28

Same - restraints Imposed In Creation Of Estate

249. Restraints on alienation of real property imposed in the creation of the estate are either

(a) Clauses of forfeiture for alienation, or

(b) Clauses forbidding alienation.

Mr. Gray, in his work Restraints on Alienation, divides the subject as we have indicated in the black letter; that is, into convey24 Prewit v. Wilson, 103 U. S. 22; Otis v. Spencer, 102 111. 622; Clayton v. Earl of Wilton, 6 Maule & S. 67, note; Clarke v. Wright, 6 Hurl. & N. 849, affirming s. c. sub. noni. Dickenson v. Wright, 5 Hurl. & N. 401; Price v. Jenkins, 5 Ch. Div. 619, reversing 4 Ch. Div. 483. Cf. Townsend v. Westacott, 2 Beav. 340; Jenkins v. Keymes, 1 Lev. 237; Warden v. Jones, 2 De Gex & J. 76.

25 Dodd v. Adams, 125 Mass. 39S; Tunison v. Chamblin, 88 111. 378; Morrill v. Kilner, 113 111. 318; Buckley v. Duff, 114 Pa. St. 596, 8 Atl. 188; Shand v. Hauley, 71 N. Y. 319; Sexton v. Wheaton, 8 Wheat. 229. See Jenkyn v. Vaugban, 3 Drew. 419.

26 Case v. Phelps, 39 N. Y. 164; Tunison v. Chamblin, 88 111. 378; Mackay v. Douglas, L. R. 14 Eq. 106; Ex parte Russell, 19 Ch. Div. 5S8. But see Todd v. Nelson, 109 N. Y. 316, 16 N. E. 360.

27 Penniman v. Cole, 8 Mete. (Mass.) 500; Mackie v. Cairns, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 547. Any reservation to the debtor is void. Harris v. Sumner, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 129.

28 Giddings v. Sears, 115 Mass. 505; Holbird v. Anderson, 5 Term R. 235; Livingston v. Bell, 3 Watts (Pa.) 198; Mcfarland v. Birdsall, 14 Ind. 126. But see Harris v. Sumner, 2 Pick (Mass.) 129; Grover v. Wakeman, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 1S7; Thomas v. Jenks, 5 Rawle (Pa.) 221; Barney v. Griffin, 2 N. Y. 365; Collomb v. Caldwell, 16 N. Y. 484.

Ances in which there is a clause of forfeiture on attempted alienation, and cases in which there is a clause attempting to make any alienation by the grantee of no effect. When a fee-simple estate is conveyed an unqualified condition against alienation is wholly void.29 But clauses providing for a forfeiture on alienation to certain persons are valid,30 though it is doubtful how far such provisions for imposing a forfeiture for alienation except to certain persons would hold good.31 By the weight of authority, conditions against alienation for a limited time are void.32 Conditions of forfeiture may be attached to estates in fee simple while they are contingent.33 As to estates in fee tail, a condition imposing a forfeiture for alienation is good,34 but such a condition may be destroyed by a barring of the entail,35 which we have seen cannot be prevented.36 As to life estates, conditions against alienation are good,37 except when the settlor attempts to make the estate forfeitable for involuntary alienation.38 So, too, estates for years may be granted with the condition that they shall be forfeited on alienation, and such a condition will be good.39

29 Potter v. Couch, 141 U. S. 296, 11 Sup. Ot. 1005; Walker v. Vincent, 19 Pa. St 369; Schermerhorn v. Negus, 1 Denio (N. Y.) 448; Ware v. Cann, 10 Barn. & C. 433; Hood v. Oglander, 34 Beav. 513; In re Kosher, 26 Ch. Div. 801. A condition against alienation in a certain manner is bad. Joslin v. Rhoades, 150 Mass. 301, 23 N. E. 42; Campbell v. Beaumont, 91 N. Y. 464; Van Home v. Campbell, 100 N. Y. 287, 3 N. E. 316; Bills v. Bills, 80 Iowa, 269, 45 N. W. 748; Holmes v. Godson, 8 De Gex, M. & G. 152. See Doe v. Glover, 1 C. B. 448. See, also, Shaw v. Ford, 7 Ch. Div. 669; Jackson v. Robins, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 537.

30 Gray, Restr. Alien (2d Ed.) § 31; Winsor v. Mills, 157 Mass. 362, 32 N. E. 352; Jackson v. Schutz, 18 Johns (N. Y.) 174.

31 Doe v. Pearson, 6 East, 173, held a restriction of alienation, except to sisters or their children, good. But see Attwater v. Attwater, 18 Beav. 330; Schermerhorn v. Negus, 1 Denio (N. Y.) 44S. And see for other valid conditions In re Macleay, L. R. 20 Eq. 186.

32 Porter v. Couch, 141 U. S. 296, 315, 11 Sup. Ct. 1005; Mandlebaum v. Mcdoneu, 29 Mich. 78: Bennett v. Cbapin, 77 Mich. 526, 43 N. W. 893; Roosevelt v. Thurman, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 220; Kepple's Appeal, 53 Pa. St. 211; Jauretche v. Proctor, 48 Pa. St 466; Anderson v. Gary, 36 Ohio St 506; In re Rosher, 26 Ch. Div. 801. Contra, In re Dugdale, 38 Ch. Div. 176. See Large'a Case, 2 Leon. 82.

33 Bank of State v. Forney, 2 Ired. Eq. (N. C.) 181; Large's Case, 2 Leon. 82, 3 Leon. 182.

34 Croker v. Trevlthin, Cro. Eliz. 35; Anon., 1 Leon. 292; Newis v. Lark, Plowd. 403.

35 Stansbury v. Hubner, 73 Md. 228, 20 Atl. 904; Rex v. Burchell, Amb. 379; Dawkins v. Penrhyn, 4 App. Cas. 51. And see Bradley v. Peixoto, 3 Ves. 324.

36 Ante, p. 51.

As to the other form of restraints on alienation,-that is, by the clause providing that the alienation itself shall be void,-it may be said that such conditions are valid in no case,40 except: (1) That of a fee tail, though this may be destroyed by barring the entail.41 (2) In many states an equitable life interest may be so limited that it may be held without power of voluntary or involuntary alienation.42 (3) The separate estates of married women may be limited with valid conditions restraining their alienation.43

37 Waldo v. Cumruings, 45 111. 421; Camp v. Cleary, 76 Va. 140; Dommett v. Bedford, 6 Term R. 684; Shee v. Hale, 13 Ves. 404; Hurst v. Hurst, 21 Ch. Div. 278. See, also, Rochford v. Hackman, 9 Hare, 475.

38 in re Pearson, 3 Ch. Div. S07; Higinbotham v. Holme, 19 Ves. 88; Ex parte Oxley, 1 Ball & B. 257. See, also, Phipps v. Ennlsmore, 4 Russ. 131; Lester v. Garland, 5 Sim. 205; Synge v. Synge, 4 Ir. Ch. 337. But see Brooke v. Pearson, 27 Beav. 181; Knight v. Browne, 30 Law J. Ch. 649; In re Dermoid, 40 Ch. Div. 585.

39 Doe v. Hawke, 2 East, 481; Roe v. Harrison, 2 Term R. 425; Roe v. Galliers, Id. 133. And see ante, p. 135.

40 As to a fee simple, Blackstone Bank v. Davis, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 42; Todd v. Sawyer, 147 Mass. 570, 17 N. E. 527; Mclntyre v. Melntyre, 123 Pa. St. 829, 10 Atl. 783; Bouldin v. Miller, 87 Tex.' 359, 28 S. W. 940; as to life estates, Bridge v. Ward, 35 Wis. 687; Butterfleld v. Reed, 160 Mass. 361, 35 N. E. 1128; Mccormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Gates, 75 Iowa, 343, 39 N. W. 657.

41 Cooper v. Maedonald, 7 Ch. Div. 288.

42 Fisher v. Taylor, 2 Rawle (Pa.) 33; Eyrick v. Hetriek, 13 Pa. St. 488; Overman's Appeal, 88 Pa. St. 276; Thaekara v. Mintzer, 100 Pa. St. 151; Clafliu v. Clattin, 149 Mass. 19, 20 N. E. 454; Broadway Nat. Bank v. Adams, 133 Mass. 170; Billings v. Marsh, 153 Mass. 311, 26 N. E. 1000; Steib v. Whitehead, 111 111. 247; Roberts v. Stevens, 84 Me. 325, 24 Atl. 873; Smith v. Towers, 69 Md. 77, 14 Atl. 497, and 15 Atl. 92; Barnes v. Dow, 59 Vt.

43 Moses v. Micou, 79 Ala. 564; Monroe v. Trenholm, 114 N. C. 590, 19 S. E. 377; Baggett v. Meux, 1 Phil. 627; Tullett v. Armstrong, 4 Mylne & C. 377; Cooper v. Maedonald, 7 Ch. Div. 288. Cf. Barton v. Briscoe, Jac. 6U3. But see Pacific Nat. Bank v. Wmndram, 133 Mass. 175; Jackson v. Von Zedlitz, 136 Mass. 342; Holmes v. Penney, 3 Kay & J. 90. And cf. Harland v. Binks, 15 Q. B. 713; Russell v. Woodward, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 408.

In a number of states statutes forbid the suspension of the power of alienation beyond two lives in being at the creation of the estate 44 or of persons in being.45

530, 10 Atl. 258; Partridge v. Cavender, 96 Mo. 452, 9 S. W. 785. Cf. Sanford v. Lackland, 2 Dill. 6, Fed. Cas. No. 12,312; In re Coleman, 39 Ch. Dlv. 443; Lord v. Bunn, 2 Younge & C. Ch. 98. A limitation over on bankruptcy is good. Nichols v. Eaton, 91 U. S. 716. Contra, In other states. Bryan v. Knickerbocker, 1 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 409; Mebane v. Mebane, 4 Ired. Eq. (N. C.) 131; Tillinghast v. Bradford, 5 R. I. 205; Heath v. Bishop, 4 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 46; Graves v. Dolphin, 1 Sim. 66; Green v. Spicer, 1 Russ. & M. 395; Younghusband v. Gisborne, 1 Colly, 400. And see Gray, Restr. Alien. (2d Ed.) preface.

44 Galway v. Bryce (Sup.) 30 N. Y. Supp. 985; Rausch v. Rausch (Sup.) 31 N. Y. Supp. 786; In re Corlies' Will, 11 Misc. Rep. 670, 33 N. Y. Supp. 572; Sanford v. Goodell, 82 Hun, 869, 81 N„ Y. Supp. 490. See, generally, Chapl. Suspen. Power, c. 2.

45 Jordan v. Woodin (Iowa) 61 N. W. 948. And see Phillips v. Harrow (lowa) 61 N. W. 484.

398 title. (Ch. 16