Rust v. Rust
Texas Court of Civil Appeals
211 S.W.2d 262 (1948)

- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
John Rust and Margene W. Rust (Mrs. Rust) (defendant) were married with a nine-year-old child, Margene A. Rust (Margene), when John died. John’s will left a gift to Mrs. Rust and left the remainder of his property in trust for Margene until October 17, 1967, her thirty-fifth birthday. On October 17, 1967, the trust would terminate with the property vesting in fee simple in Margene. The will provided that if Margene died before October 17, 1967, with issue, the issue would become the beneficiary of the trust, with title to the property vesting in such issue “then surviving.” Upon the trust’s termination on October 17, 1967, title to the property would vest in the issue in fee simple. The will provided that if Margene died before October 17, 1967, without issue, the property should pass in fee simple to John’s siblings, George Foster, Armistead Rust, and Sarah Gordon (plaintiffs). John’s siblings brought suit to construe the will. Mrs. Rust argued that, because of the rule against perpetuities, Margene living until October 17, 1946—her fourteenth birthday and 21 years before the termination of the trust—was a condition precedent to the vesting of her interest in the property. The court appointed a guardian ad litem to represent Margene’s interests since Margene was still a minor. The guardian ad litem argued in favor of the will. The trial court disagreed with Mrs. Rust, finding that Margene’s interest in the property vested upon John’s death and was defeasible upon her death prior to turning 35. Mrs. Rust appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McClendon, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 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.