Family agreements looking to tbe advantageous settlement of estates or to tbe adjustment of family differences, disputes or controversies, wben approved by tbe court, are valid and binding. Tbey are bottomed on a sound public policy wbicb seeks to preserve estates and to promote and encourage family accord. Spencer v. McCleneghan, 202 N. C., 662, 163 S. E., 753; In re Estate of Wright, 204 N. C., 465, 168 S. E., 664; Reynolds v. Reynolds, 208 N. C., 578, 182 S. E., 341; Bohannon v. Trotinan, 214 N. C., 706, 200 S. E., 852; Scbouler, Wills, Executors and Administrators (6d), sec. 3103.
Tbe plaintiff testified “wben Mr. Eisb died bis estate was involved, tbe value of tbe assets was down, and it was agreed between tbe parties interested that, since it was not to tbe best interest of tbe estate to immediately close tbe same, as time passed, and income of tbe estate and sums realized from tbe liquidation of assets permitted, to pay tbe debts of tbe estate, together witb specific bequests to Lucy Moore and Jane Alice Eisb Hanson, tbe sum of $10,000. That agreement was made.” Sbe further testified that it was her understanding that sbe would receive tbe income later upon wbicb understanding “I voluntarily gave up any claim to tbe income for tbe time being, so as to settle tbe debts and tbe payment of legacies.”
TJpon this and other testimony offered tbe court found that tbe agreement was made without any condition that tbe income was to be paid tbe plaintiff later. This and other findings of fact are supported by competent evidence and tbe facts found are sufficient to support tbe judgment entered. C. S., 569; Matthews v. Fry, 143 N. C., 384, 55 S. E., 787; Eley v. R. R., 165 N. C., 78, 80 S. E., 1064; Trust Co. v. Cooke, 204 N. C., 566, 169 S. E., 148; Buchanan v. Clark, 164 N. C., 56, 80 S. E., 424; Best v. Garris, 211 N. C., 305, 190 S. E., 221.
It is apparent that tbe agreement was to tbe advantage of all parties. Through tbe contract of tbe legatees and tbe indulgence of creditors tbe executrices gained time wbicb enabled them to await tbe passing of tbe prevailing economic depression and to so handle tbe estate as to convert it from one in wbicb there was nothing for the residuary legatees into one in wbicb tbe residuum is of real value, producing a substantial income for tbe life tenant. As tbe daughters and stepdaughter are tbe remaindermen tbey also benefit to a material extent.
Tbe plaintiff proceeds upon tbe theory that all tbe income from tbe property of tbe estate, while it was in tbe bands of tbe executrices, belonged to her. In this sbe misconceives her rights under tbe will. If sbe was entitled to any interest at all it was interest on the residuary estate. At tbe time of tbe death of testator there was no residuum. Tbe income came from property it was tbe duty of tbe executrices to apply to *146other purposes. Perhaps the same result would follow even though there was no agreement. In any event, the plaintiff has not surrendered nearly so much as she seems to think.
Trust Co. v. Jones, 210 N. C., 339, 186 S. E., 335, 105 A. L. R., 1189, is factually distinguishable.
The judgment below is
Affirmed.