## Facts

- Julia H. Clarke married Henry P. Clarke in 1886; they thereafter lived in South Carolina.
- Julia died in 1894 owning real and personal property in South Carolina and real property in Connecticut.
- Julia’s will gave the residue one-half to Henry and one-half to Henry in trust for their daughter Nancy until age 25, with a provision for equal per capita division among Henry and all children if additional children survived.
- At Julia’s death, two daughters survived: Nancy (a minor) and an infant daughter, Julia.
- The infant daughter Julia died a few months later, owning no Connecticut property except whatever interest she received under her mother’s will.
- Henry, as executor and trustee, brought a South Carolina action against Nancy (through a guardian ad litem) seeking construction of the will.
- The South Carolina court construed the will to effect an equitable conversion of the real property, including the Connecticut land, treating it as personalty for purposes of sale and distribution.
- Henry then sought instructions in Connecticut concerning administration and distribution of the Connecticut real estate, including the deceased infant’s share.
- Connecticut courts declined to treat the Connecticut land as equitably converted by the South Carolina decree and distributed the Connecticut realty under Connecticut law as land at its situs, awarding the deceased infant’s share to Nancy.
- Henry sought review, arguing the Full Faith and Credit Clause required Connecticut to follow the South Carolina construction.

## Issues

1. Whether a South Carolina decree construing a will to effect equitable conversion of Connecticut land must be given full faith and credit in Connecticut so that Connecticut treats the land as personalty and distributes it accordingly.
2. Whether the situs state’s courts are bound, for purposes of title and devolution of local real property, by another state’s judgment purporting to determine the status of that land.

## Decision

- The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors.
- The Court held that the law of the state where land is located controls its transmission by will or by intestacy.
- A non-situs state court may construe a will as to persons and property within its jurisdiction, but it cannot conclusively determine the legal status, title, or devolution of land in another state.
- Full faith and credit did not require Connecticut to treat Connecticut land as equitably converted based on the South Carolina decree.

## Legal Principles

- The situs state’s law governs the descent, devise, and transmission of real property located within its borders.
- A sister-state judgment construing a will is not conclusive in the situs state insofar as it purports to determine the status of, or transfer interests in, real property located outside the rendering state.
- Full Faith and Credit does not compel a state to surrender control over title and devolution of land within its territory to another state’s courts.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Connecticut retained exclusive authority to apply its own real-property law to Connecticut land, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause did not require Connecticut to treat the land as converted to personalty based on a South Carolina will-construction decree.


Clarke v. Clarke, 178 U.S. 186 (1900)