## Facts

- George P. Searight died testate in Wayne County, Ohio, on November 27, 1948.
- His will bequeathed his dog, Trixie, to Florence Hand and directed the executor to deposit $1,000 in a savings and loan association to pay Hand $0.75 per day for Trixie’s keep “as long as it shall live.”
- The will provided that if Trixie died before the $1,000 (plus interest) was exhausted, the balance would be divided equally among five named individuals who were alive at Searight’s death.
- At Searight’s death, Trixie, Hand, and all five named remaindermen were living; Hand accepted the dog and the executor began making the daily payments.
- The dog’s agreed value was $5.
- The probate court taxed the $5 value of the dog as a succession to Hand but concluded Ohio’s succession tax statute did not tax the $1,000 fund because it did not pass to a “person, institution or corporation.”
- The Ohio Department of Taxation appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the will’s provision establishing a fund to pay for a dog’s care was a valid testamentary disposition under Ohio law.
2. Whether the arrangement violated the rule against perpetuities.
3. Whether the $1,000 pet-care fund was subject to Ohio’s succession (inheritance) tax imposed on property passing to a “person, institution or corporation.”

## Decision

- The court upheld the testamentary provision as lawful, characterizing it as an “honorary trust” or a gift with a valid power when exercised.
- The court held the provision did not violate the rule against perpetuities.
- The court held that a succession tax could not be levied on amounts devoted to the dog’s care because the money was not property passing for the use of a “person, institution or corporation” within the statute.
- The court left undisturbed the taxation of the dog’s $5 value as a succession to Florence Hand.

## Legal Principles

- A testamentary provision for the care of a specific animal may be valid if the purpose is lawful and not capricious, even though the animal is not a legal beneficiary; the disposition may be treated as an honorary trust or as a gift coupled with a power exercised for the stated purpose.
- A direction to apply a fixed fund for an animal’s care “as long as it shall live,” with any unexpended balance payable to named persons, does not violate the rule against perpetuities when the terms necessarily limit duration and vesting.
- A succession tax limited by statute to property passing to a “person, institution or corporation” does not reach a fund that can be used only for an animal’s upkeep, because the beneficial use taxed by the statute does not pass to a qualifying taxable recipient.
- Property that does pass directly to a human beneficiary (here, the dog itself) may be taxed as a succession.

## Conclusion

The appellate court approved the will’s pet-care arrangement as a lawful noncharitable purpose disposition and held that Ohio’s succession tax did not apply to the $1,000 restricted fund devoted to the dog’s care, while permitting taxation of the dog’s nominal value transferred to the named caretaker.


In re Searight’s Estate (Department of Taxation of Ohio v. Miller), 87 Ohio App. 417, 95 N.E.2d 779 (Ohio Ct. App. 1950)