restriction “for any period longer than set forth [therein].” Thus, according to its terms, the release became null and void when Charles Wright conveyed his interest in the property to the Bank of Prattville. Notwithstanding that conveyance, the Wrights argue that the release protects Linda Wright, the present owner of the full interest in the property. We do not agree. The subsequent conveyance by the Bank of Prattville of Charles Wright’s interest to Linda Wright would not resurrect the terminated release. Further, Linda Wright cannot receive protection as an “heir” because of the principle that one cannot be an heir during the lifetime of the person from whom one stands to inherit. Fuller v. Nichols, 219 Ala. 58, 121 So. 52 (1929). See Pattillo v. Pattillo, 414 So.2d 915 (Ala.1982) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we affirm the trial court’s judgment
recognizing that no one has a right vested inchoate or otherwise in an intestate share until the person is dead holding that when a constitutional right is vested in a party and there is a doubt as to whether that right has been waived the doubt should be resolved in the defendants favor holding a defendant is not vested with a right to be absent from trial holding that until the state issues a certificate of appropriation any right to use the water remains inchoate holding that permits only give the applicant an inchoate or contingent right to put the water to a beneficial use