The law is favorable to the vesting of estates, and adverse to their destruction, and consequently a stipulation in a conveyance or a devise will be construed, if possible, not to create a condition.7 The courts will, by preference, construe language as creating a covenant,8 a trust,9

4. Rogers v. Sebastian, 21 Ark. 440; Randolph v. Helps, 9 Colo. 29, 10 Pac. 245; Adams v. Logan County, 11 111. 339; Taylor v. Hunt, 118 N. C. 168, 24 S. E. 359; Charles v. Byrd, 29 S. C. 544, 8 S. E. 1; Morris v. Healy Lumber Co., 46 Wash. 686; 91 Pac. 186; But see Thompson v. Christie, 138 Pa. 230, 20 Atl. 934, 11 L. R. A. 236.

An oral condition subsequent can no doubt be shown in connection with a valid oral lease. See Sheppard's Touchstone 119.

5. See 4 Wigmore, Evidence Sec. 2410.

6. See 1 Tiffany, Landlord & Ten. p. 369.

7. Weller v. Brown, 160 Cal.

515, 117 Pac. 517; Scovill v. 515, 117 Pac. 517; Scovill v. Mc-Mahon, 62 Conn. 378, 21 L. R. A. 58; 36 Am. St. Rep. 850, 26 Atl. 479, Thompson v. Hart, 133 Ga. 540, 66 S. E. 270; Williams v. Vanderbilt, 145 111. 238, 21 L. R. A. 489, 36 Am. St. 486, 34 N. E. 476, aff'g 40 111. App. 298; Sumner v. Darnell, 128 Ind. 38, 13 L. R. A. 173, 27 N. E. 162; Peden v. Chicago R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 73 Iowa 328, 5 Am. St. Rep. 680, 35 N. W. 424, and note; Ruggles v. Clare, 45 Kan. 662, 26 Pac. 25; Wheeler v. Dascomb, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 285; Studdard v. Wells, 120 Mo. 25, 25 S. W. 201; Emerson v. Simpson, 43 N. H. 475, 82 Am. Dec. 168, 80 Am. Dec. 184;

Cunningham v. Parker, 146 N. Y. 29, 48 Am. St. Rep. 765, 40 N. E. 635; Munro v. Syracuse, L. S. & N. R. Co., 200 N. Y. 224, 21 Ann. Cas. 594, 93 N. E. 516; Carolina & N. W. R. Co. v. Carpenter, 165 N. C. 465, 81 S. E. 682; Portland v. Terwilliger, 16 Ore. 465, 19 Pac. 90; Deepwater R. Co. v. Honaker, 66 W. Va. 136, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 388, 66 S. E. 104; Henry Rohr's Sons Co. v. Buckley, 159 Wis. 589, 150 N. W. 994; Board of Com'rs of Mahoning County v. Young, 8 C. C. A. 27, S9 Fed. 96.

8. Elyton Land Co. v. South & North Alabama R. Co., 100 Ala. 396, 14 So. 207; Firth v. Los Angeles Pac. Land Co., 28 Cal. App.

399, 152 Pac. 935; Scovill v. Mc-Mahon, 62 Conn. 378, 21 L. R. A. 58, 36 Am. St. Rep. 350, 26 Atl. 179; Self v. Billings, 139 Ga.

400, 77 S. E. 562; Star Brewery Co. v. Primas, 163 111. 652, 45 N. E. 145; Thompson v. Thompson, 9 Ind. 323, 68 Am. Dec. 638; Peden v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. 73 Iowa, 328, 5 Am. St. Rep. 680, 35 N. W. 424; Carroll County Academy v. Gallatin Academy, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 824, 47 S. W. 617; Rawson v. Inhabitants of School Dist. No. 5, in Uxbridge, 7 Allen (Mass.) 125, 83 Am. Dec. 670; Skinner v. Shepard, 130 Mass*. 180; Haydon v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 222 Mo. 126, 121 S. W. 15; Woodruff v. Woodruff, 44 N. J. Eq. 349, 1 L. R. A. 380, 16 Atl. 4; Graves v. Deterling, 120 N. Y. 447, 24 N. E. 665; Munro v. Syracuse L. S. & N. R. Co. 200 N. Y. 224.

21 Ann. Cas. 594; 93 N. E. 516, Jakel v. Seeck, 79 Ore. 489. L55 Pac. 1193, 154 Pac. 424; Chicago T. & M. C. Ry. Co. v. Titterington, 84 Tex. 218, 31 Am. St. Rep. 39, 19 S. W. 472; Palmer's Ex'r v. Ryan, 63 Vt. 227, 22 Atl. 574; Deepwater R. Co. v. Honaker, 66 W. Va. 136, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 388, 66 S. E. 104.

9. Stanley v. Colt, 5 Wall. (U. S.) 119, 165, 18 L. Ed. 502; Prince v. Barrow, 120 Ga. 810, 48 S. E. 412; Crawford v. Thompson, 91 Ind. 266, 46 Am. Rep. 598; Woodward v. Walling, 31 Iowa, 533; Neely v. Hoskins, 84 Me. 386, 24 Atl. 882; Sohier v. Trinity Church, 109 Mass. 1; Ashuelot Nat. Bank v. City of Keene, 74 N. H. 148, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 758, 65 Atl. 826; Mills v. Davison, 54 N. J. Eq. 659, 35 L. R. A. 113, 55 Am. St. Rep. 594, 35 Atl. 1072; Sellers M. E. Church's Petition, 139 Pa. St. 61, 11 L. R. A. 282, 21 Atl. 145; Brown v. Caldwell, 23 W. Va. 187, 48 Am. Rep. 376.

Prof. J. C. Gray says: "For nearly, if not quite, two centuries, the remedy by entry for breach of condition attached to a conveyance in fee simple has been practically obsolete. * * * The practice of entry undoubtedly fell into disuse, because, when the condition was for the payment of money, which it generally was, equity would restrain a forfeiture, and would in many cases enforce the payment as a trust." Gray, Perpetuities, Sec. 282, note. In England, furthermore, the rule against perpetuities greatly reor an equitable charge.10

The fact that a conveyance states the purpose for which it is made, or defines the use to which the land is to be applied, is not ordinarily regarded as creating a condition subsequent, subjecting the grantee's estate to defeasance in case the property is not used in accordance with such provision.11 A different construction stricts the ability to impose conditions in the creation of an estate in fee simple. See post, Sec. 183.

"What by the old law was deemed a devise upon condition would now, perhaps, in almost every case, be construed a devise in fee upon trust, and, by this construction, instead of the heir taking advantage of the condition broken, the cestui que trust can compel an observance of the trust by a suit in equity." 1 Sugden, Powers (8th Ed.) 106. This is quoted with approval in Stanley v. Colt, 5 Wall. (U. S.) 119. This sweeping statement is not, however, supported by the treatment of the subject in the standard English treatises on Wills by Mr. Jarman and Mr. Theobald, however true if confined to a devise subject to the payment of a legacy. In this country, most of the cases involve conditions created by conveyance inter vivos, but they may unquestionably be created by devise.

10. Jacobs v. Ditz, 260 111. 98, 102 N. E. 1077; Pearcy v. Green-well, 80 Ky. 616, 4 Ky. L. Rep. 587; Taft v. Morse, 4 Mete. (Mass.) 523; Skillman v. Van Pelt, 1 N. J. Eq. 511; Cunningham v. Parker, 146 N. Y. 29, 48 Am. St. Rep. 765, 40 N. E. 635; Woods v. Woods, has, however, occasionally been adopted when the conveyance was purely voluntary, or the language was contained in a devise, such a case being distinguished from that of a conveyance for a pecuniary consideration, in which latter case an intention to create a condition in favor of the vendor is not to be anticipated.12

44 N. C. 290; In re Hanna's Appeal, 31 Pa. St. 53; Casey v. Casey, 55 Vt. 518.

11. Ruch v. Rock Island, 97 U. S. 693, 24 L. Ed. 1101; Stuart v. Easton, 170 U. S. 383, 42 L. Ed. 1078; Fitzgerald v. Modoc County, 164 Cal. 493, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1229, 129 Pac. 794; Warner v. Bennett, 31 Conn. 468; Scovill v. Mc-Mahon, 62 Conn. 378, 21 L. R. A. 58, 36 Am. St. Rep. 350, 26 Atl. 479; Thornton v. Trammell, 39 Ga. 202; City of Atlanta v. Jones, 135 Ga. 376, 69 S. E. 571; Cross v. Carson, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 138, 44 Am. Dec. 742; Higbee v. Rode-man, 129 Ind. 244, 28 N. E. 442; McElroy v. Morley, 40 Kan. 76, 19 Pac. 341; Wright & Taylor v. Board of Education, Bullitt County, 151 Ky. 560, 152 S. W. 543; Hooper v. Cummings, 45 Me. 359; Faith v. Bowles, 86 Md. 13, 63 Am. St. Rep. 489, 37 Atl. 711; Rice v. Boston & W. R. Corp., 12 Allen (Mass.) 141; Adams v. First Baptist Church of St. Charles, 148 Mich. 140, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 509, 12 Ann. Cas. 224, 111 N. W. 757; Farnham v. Thompson, 34 Minn. 330, 57 Am. Rep. 59, 26 N. W. 9; Soria v. Harrison County, 96 Miss. 109, 50 So. 443; Nicoll v. New York & E. R. Co., 12 N. Y. 121, 125; Raley v. Umatilla County, 15 Ore. 172, 3 Am. St.