The question for decision is whether the restrictions in. defendant’s paper chain of title are enforceable under the rule applied in Johnston v. Garrett, 190 N. C., 835, 130 S. E., 835, and McLeskey v. Heinlein, 200 N. C., 290, 156 S. E., 489, or unenforceable according tO' the principle announced in Starkey v. Gardner, 194 N. C., 74, 138 S. E., 408, 54 A. L. R., 806; Higgins v. Hough, 195 N. C., 652, 143 S. E., 212; Stroupe v. Truesdell, 196 N. C., 303, 145 S. E., 925; Snyder v. Caldwell, 207 N. C., 626, 178 S. E., 83; Elrod v. Phillips, 214 N. C., 472, 199 S. E., 722.

We think the case is controlled by the decisions in the latter line-Indeed, it is patterned after the Elrod case, supra, which involved a lot in the same vicinity though, not in the same subdivision. The findings are supported by the evidence, and the court’s conclusion is a sequitur under the applicable decisions. Annotations: 85 A. L. R., 985; 54 A. L. R., 812. See, also, as obliquely pertinent, the case of Humphrey v. Beall, 215 N. C., 15, 200 S. E., 918.

Affirmed.