Wilson v. Smith

373 S.W.2d 514, 1963 Tex. App. LEXIS 1868
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 13, 1963
Docket14148
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 373 S.W.2d 514 (Wilson v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wilson v. Smith, 373 S.W.2d 514, 1963 Tex. App. LEXIS 1868 (Tex. Ct. App. 1963).

Opinion

MURRAY, Chief Justice.

This suit was brought in the District Court of Bexar County, Texas, by Petitioners Forrest M. Smith, Ernest M. Groos and T. C. Frost, Trustees of the Morrison Trust created under the will of R. W. Morrison, deceased, for a declaratory judgment construing the will of R. W. Morrison and setting forth their duties under the will.

Dr. Ben B. Burrows of Los Angeles, California, a chiropractor holding a chiropractic license in California, Edmund G. Brown, then Attorney General of the State of California, Will Wilson, then Attorney General of the State of Texas, Fred M. Standley, then Attorney General of the State of New Mexico, and Baylor University, Waco, Texas, were named defendants. Baylor University disclaimed any interest in the 50% of the income from the Morrison Trust to be donated to the establishment and maintenance of Clinic-Hospitals in California and elsewhere. The Attorney General of the State of New Mexico did not answer but defaulted.

The Attorney General of Texas answered that the establishment and operation of a clinic-hospital in Texas as provided and for the purposes stated in the Morrison will is prohibited by and contrary to the law and policy of the State of Texas, therefore such provisions are invalid and, being invalid are void everywhere, and cannot be enforced as to the establishment and operation of such clinic-hospital in California/ New Mexico, or elsewhere.

The case was tried before the court without a jury, and the trial court entered judgment, making many findings of fact and giving many instructions as to the duties of the trustees of the Morrison Trust, and members of the clinic-hospital committee yet to be appointed. This appeal has been perfected by Hon. Waggoner Carr, now Attorney General of the State of Texas.

The trial court, among other things, decreed as follows:

“That the clinic-hospital committee, to be composed of chiropractors licensed in the State of California and trained in the same art and science as that practiced and advocated by Dr. Ben B. Burrows, the directing committee member, if doing research and study and applying the methods of nutrition, blood chemistry, physical therapy, radionics, electricity and other methods of non-medicinal healing in the treatment of human illness in a clinic-hospital established in the State of Texas, would be in violation of the laws and public policy of the State of Texas and in particular the Medical Practice Act, the Chiropractic Act and Hospital Licensing Act of the State of Texas, and it is the judgment of this court that the establishment, maintenance and operation of such a clinic-hospital in the State of Texas in the manner set forth in the testator’s will would be violative of the laws and public policy of the State of Texas and such clinic-hospital provisions of said testator’s will are invalid in the State of Texas.”

We agree with this provision of the trial court’s judgment as it is fully supported by the undisputed facts. The Morrison will-provided, among other things, that:

“5. Said Clinic-Hospitals shall be devoted exclusively to the scientific study, research and improvement of existing methods, and to the development of new methods of treating and of preventing human sickness, particular *516 ly with respect to the effects on human health of nutrition, blood chemistry, radionics and electricity, and to methods of non-medicinal healing, and to applying the knowledge so acquired in the treatment of human sickness.
“6. Should said committee fail or refuse to operate any Clinic-Hospital herein provided for in full accordance with the directions contained herein, or to properly account for all receipts coming into their hands and all disbursements therefrom, said trustees shall remove each member of said committee so failing or refusing and shall select and appoint their successors. Annual audits shall be made and delivered to the trustees by a C.P.A. selected by them of all Clinic-Hospital funds and accounts.
“7. Reasonable charges for service rendered by said Clinic-Hospital shall be made to all who may avail themselves thereof and who may be financially able to pay therefor, but no needy person shall ever be denied service solely by reason of inability to pay therefor, and all payments received for such services shall be paid to the committee operating the Clinic-Hospital and shall be used by them solely for the purposes thereof.”

It is quite clear that the establishment and maintenance of such clinic-hospital is not only contrary to the civil laws of Texas, but is also denounced as a crime by our criminal laws. Medical Practice Act, Art. 4495, etc., Vernon’s Ann.Civ. Stats.; Art. 739 Vernon’s Penal Code; Art. 742 V.P.C.; Texas Hospital Licensing Law, Art. 4437f, Sec. 16, Vernon’s Ann.Civ. Stats.; The Chiropractic Act, Art. 4512b, V.A.C.S. See also Wilson v. State Board of Naturopathic Examiners, Tex.Civ.App., 298 S.W.2d 946.

The trial court further found:

“That the validity of the clinic-hospital provisions of the trust insofar as it authorizes the acts to be performed by such clinic-hospital committee in the State of California is to be determined with reference to California law. and not Texas law. That the above acts to be performed by such clinic-hospital committee would not be in violation of the laws or the public policy of the State of California, and, therefore, the Board of Trustees are authorized to carry out the clinic-hospital provisions of the Morrison Trust in the State of California as expeditiously as said Trustees may reasonably in their judgment do so.”

We do not agree with this part of the judgment, and the trial court committed reversible error in so decreeing. The laws of Texas and not California should here be applied.

The trial court correctly decreed as follows:

“(a) That the domicile of the testator, R. W. Morrison, at the time of his death was in Bexar County, Texas; that the last will of R. W. Morrison was probated in Bexar County, Texas, and his estate was administered in Bexar County, Texas; that all of the assets of the Morrison Trust are situated and have their situs within the State of Texas, and all of the Trustees of the Morrison Trust are, and are to be, residents of the State of Texas.
“(b) That the Morrison Trust is to be continuously administered and treated as one trust, with the corpus and income handled together and treated as a single fund, and the entire net income therefrom each year, after payment of the annuities specified in said will, shall be credited on the books of the trust by the Trustees as follows: 50% to the clinic-hospitals account or fund; 25% to Baylor University, and 25% to the fund for perpetuation, preservation and maintenance of the physical properties of the trust as in said *517 will provided; that income not distributed each year shall he invested and handled along with other funds of the trust as a single fund, as the Trustees, in the exercise of their discretion and judgment, deem in the best interest of the trust, and all income shall accrue to the benefit of the entire trust.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hilliard v. Marshall
91 F. Supp. 2d 916 (W.D. Louisiana, 1999)
Robinson v. Commissioner
75 T.C. 346 (U.S. Tax Court, 1980)
Hensic v. Afshari Enterprises, Inc.
599 S.W.2d 522 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1980)
Van Hoose v. Moore
441 S.W.2d 597 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1969)
Castilleja v. Camero
414 S.W.2d 424 (Texas Supreme Court, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
373 S.W.2d 514, 1963 Tex. App. LEXIS 1868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-smith-texapp-1963.