## Facts

- Arthur S. Hickok, domiciled in Ohio, executed a will less than one year before his death disposing of a large estate that included Texas land and mineral interests.
- After minor specific bequests, the will placed the residue (real and personal property) in trust for twenty years, paying income primarily to Hickok’s widow and adult children.
- After the twenty-year period, the trust corpus was to be divided into five percentage “funds” and distributed to named charitable and religious beneficiaries, including the petitioner charities.
- An Ohio statute invalidated testamentary gifts to charitable and similar entities if the will was executed within one year of death and the testator left surviving issue; Texas had no comparable statute.
- Ohio courts, in prior litigation involving the will, generally held the Ohio statute applicable, creating a conflict as to whether the charitable gifts could take effect with respect to Texas real property.
- The Texas trial court, on summary judgment motions, upheld the charitable gifts as to some Texas property and invalidated them as to the remainder.
- The Texas Court of Civil Appeals reformed the judgment to deny the charities all relief, concluding their interests were contingent rather than vested.
- The Supreme Court of Texas granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the validity of testamentary gifts of Texas land and mineral interests by an Ohio domiciliary is governed by Texas law (situs) or by Ohio law (domicile), including Ohio’s one-year charitable-gift restriction.
2. Whether equitable conversion required treating the Texas realty as personal property, thereby applying Ohio law and invalidating the charitable gifts.
3. Whether the charities held vested remainders or merely contingent interests in the Texas property under the will.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the Court of Civil Appeals.
- Texas law governed the validity of devises of Texas land and mineral interests; the Ohio statute did not control those dispositions.
- Equitable conversion did not recharacterize the Texas realty as personalty for conflict-of-laws purposes so as to import Ohio law.
- The charities held vested remainder interests in the Texas property, subject only to the intervening twenty-year trust period.
- The charitable gifts were upheld as valid with respect to the Texas lands and mineral estates.

## Legal Principles

- The validity of a testamentary devise of real property is determined by the law of the situs of the land.
- A foreign domicile’s restrictions on charitable testamentary gifts do not invalidate devises of Texas real property when Texas law permits the gifts.
- Equitable conversion will not be applied to defeat the situs rule where the property interest at issue remains Texas land for purposes of determining governing law.
- A remainder may be vested despite postponed enjoyment when beneficiaries are identified and the only delay is an intervening trust term.

## Conclusion

Texas applies situs law to determine the validity of devises of Texas land and mineral interests; neither an Ohio statute limiting charitable gifts nor an equitable-conversion theory displaced Texas law, and the charities’ interests were vested remainders subject to the trust’s term.


Toledo Society for Crippled Children v. Hickok, 261 S.W.2d 692 (Tex. 1953)