Evans v. Abney
Georgia Supreme Court
165 S.E.2d 160 (1968)
- Written by Melissa Hammond, JD
Facts
Senator A.O. Bacon established a trust in his 1911 will for the creation of a park in the city of Macon, Georgia, to be named Baconsfield. The park would benefit White women and children of the city of Macon. The Baconsfield board of managers (plaintiffs) brought an action against the city of Macon (defendant), as trustee under Bacon’s will, and Guyton G. Abney and others (defendants), as successor trustees under the will, claiming that the city refused to enforce the provisions of the will regarding the exclusive use of Baconsfield by White people and asking that the city be removed as trustee. Reverend E.S. Evans and others (the residents), Black residents of Macon, intervened, claiming that the racial limitation on the park’s use was illegal and seeking to have Bacon’s general charitable purpose effectuated by having non-private persons appointed as trustees. Bacon’s heirs at law also intervened, seeking to have the property revert to them if the board’s relief was not granted. The city ultimately resigned as trustee, and the trial court accepted the resignation. The residents appealed, and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the judgment in part, holding that even in private hands, the park could not be operated on a segregated basis under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Georgia Supreme Court adopted the judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court and remanded the case to the trial court, finding that the purpose of the trust had failed. A motion for summary judgment by the successor trustees was granted on the ground that the trust had failed because the trust’s essential purpose had become impossible of performance and cy pres was not applicable to the trust as there was no general charitable purpose expressed in the will. Thus, the property reverted to Bacon’s heirs at law by operation of law. The residents appealed, claiming that the trial court’s judgment constituted state action, which denied them their right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mobley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.