Trammell v. Elliott
Georgia Supreme Court
230 Ga. 841, 199 S.E.2d 194 (1973)
Facts
Clem Boyd’s will established scholarship trust funds at the Georgia Institute of Technology and two private universities to benefit “poor white boys and girls.” The trustees could use only interest to provide scholarships, but they could give preference to descendants of Boyd’s parents and pay them up to $500 annually from principal for college. Boyd did not specify that the trustees could administer the trust only in the manner described, nor did she include a reverter clause or gift over if the grant failed. Instead, Boyd said adults did not need her life savings and that she wanted to benefit children needing education. Other parts of the will indicated Boyd did not want any provision to fail and included reverter clauses. The Georgia attorney general conceded a state interest because the Georgia Institute of Technology is a publicly funded university, and so the racial restriction violated equal protection. Boyd’s executor (plaintiff) brought suit asking the court to construe the will and provide direction. The court applied the cy pres doctrine to remove the racial restriction and entered summary judgment upholding the trust as otherwise written. The executors of the estate of one of Boyd’s heirs appealed, arguing the trust should fail and the funds revert to Boyd’s heirs.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hawes, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 688,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 43,000 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.
