Case Name: JACK WALLIN et al. v. JONAH RICE
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1915-12-15
Citations: 170 N.C. 417
Docket Number: 
Parties: JACK WALLIN et al. v. JONAH RICE.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 170
Pages: 417–420

Head Matter:
JACK WALLIN et al. v. JONAH RICE.
(Filed 15 December, 1915.)
Deeds and Conveyances — Husband and Wife — Conveyance to Husband — Certificate — Statutes.
It is necessary to tbe validity of a deed to lands, made by tbe wife to ber busband, tbat tbe justice of tbe peace find and certify in his certificate of probate tbat, at tbe time of ber privy examination, tbe contract or deed was not unreasonable or injurious to ber; and, where tbe deed is void for noncompliance with tbe statute, .her covenant of warranty materially affecting ber estate is also ineffectual and cannot operate to estop ber or those claiming under ber.
Clark, C. J., dissenting.
Appeal by defendant from Long, J., at September Term, 1915, of MADISON.
Civil action.
Guy V. Roberts, E. Z. Ray and Martin, Rollins & Wright for the plaintiffs.
P. A. McElroy, G. B. Marshburn, Mark W. Brown for the defendant.

Opinion:
Beowet, J.
Plaintiffs are six of the heirs at law of Emily A. Rice, wife of defendant, who died without issue 8 April, 1915. On 3 May, 1913, she executed a deed in fee to defendant, describing the land in controversy, for the recited consideration of $1,000, containing full covenants of warranty. This deed was not executed in accordance with sec. 2107 of the Revisal, in that the justice of the peace did not find and certify in his certificate of probate that at the time of her privy examination the contract or deed was not unreasonable or injurious to her. The failure to observe the requirements of the statute makes the deed absolutely void. Singleton v. Cherry, 168 N. C., 404; Butler v. Butler, 169 N. C., 584.
The position that plaintiffs are estopped from claiming the land by the covenant of warranty in the deed is untenable. If the deed is void for noncompliance with the statute, the covenant of warranty is likewise void, as it is a contract between husband and wife materially affecting her estate.
Where the deed is void the mere fact that it contains a covenant of warranty will not make it operative by way of estoppel, for, to make a warranty binding, there must be some estate conveyed to which the warranty may be annexed. A deed void as being given in contravention of a statute works no estoppel. Thus, a married woman will not be es-topped by a deed not executed in the mode'provided by statute. Green v. Branton, 16 N. C., 504; Smith v. Ingram, 130 N. C., 106; Scott v. Battle, 85 N. C., 184.
As the contract is void, the defendant cannot recover damages from his wife's estate for its breach, and that is especially true in this case, as the jury have found that defendant paid no consideration for the land.
No error.