## Facts

- William Marsh Rice created a charitable trust (the “Indenture”) to establish and endow an educational institute in Houston devoted to the advancement of literature, science, and art.
- The Indenture directed that the institute provide instruction to white inhabitants and that instruction be offered without tuition.
- Rice University’s trustees concluded that continued adherence to the racial restriction and tuition-free requirement had become impossible or impracticable given modern legal and economic conditions affecting higher education.
- Rice and its trustees brought suit seeking a judicial construction of the Indenture and, alternatively, equitable authorization under cy pres and deviation to eliminate or modify the racial and tuition restrictions.
- The case was tried to a jury on special issues; the jury found the Indenture intended white-only admission and free tuition, but that carrying out each intent had become impossible or impracticable.
- The trial court entered judgment authorizing Rice to admit qualified applicants without regard to race and to charge tuition.
- Alumni and donors led by John B. Coffee intervened to oppose the changes; another group of alumni/donors intervened in support of the trustees’ plan.
- An earlier intermediate appellate dismissal for lack of intervenor standing was reversed by the Texas Supreme Court, which remanded for consideration of the merits.

## Issues

1. Whether the Rice University trustees could, consistent with the charitable trust and the settlor’s general intent, eliminate the Indenture’s race restriction and tuition-free requirement.
2. Whether cy pres and/or deviation permitted modification of the trust’s specific terms based on jury findings that literal compliance had become impossible or impracticable.
3. Whether the trial court properly authorized desegregated admissions and charging tuition as a means of preserving the trust’s general charitable purpose.

## Decision

- The Court of Civil Appeals sustained the trial court’s judgment.
- The court approved authorization for Rice to admit qualified applicants without regard to race.
- The court approved authorization for Rice to charge tuition for attendance.
- The court treated the jury’s impossibility/impracticability findings as sufficient predicate for equitable modification to preserve the trust’s general charitable objective.

## Legal Principles

- Courts construe charitable trusts to effectuate the settlor’s dominant charitable purpose; specific directions may be treated as subordinate means when strict compliance would defeat that purpose.
- When a specific trust term becomes impossible or impracticable to carry out, a court of equity may authorize modification under cy pres and/or deviation to accomplish the charitable purpose as nearly as possible.
- A judicial authorization to alter restrictive provisions may be appropriate where the trust remains viable and the modification is directed to preserving the educational mission rather than terminating or diverting the charitable use.
- Interested private parties may participate in charitable-trust litigation even when the Attorney General is designated to represent the public interest; the Attorney General’s presence does not necessarily preclude appellate review by intervenors.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a judgment modifying the Rice charitable trust to permit race-neutral admissions and the charging of tuition, holding that equitable doctrines allow departure from specific, impracticable restrictions when necessary to carry forward the settlor’s general educational purpose.


Coffee v. William Marsh Rice Univ., 408 S.W.2d 269 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston 1966)