Uploaded April 2025 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Clarke v. Clarke
United States Supreme Court
178 U.S. 186 (1900)
Does a will written in one state govern the inheritance of land in another state? The United States Supreme Court inherited this issue when it took up the late nineteenth century case of Clarke versus Clarke.
Julia Clarke, a South Carolina resident, died. Julia was survived by her husband, Henry, and two daughters, five year old Nancy, and a two month old also named Julia. Baby Julia died a few months later.
Missus Clarke's estate included real and personal property, including real estate in Connecticut. Missus Clarke had executed a will before she had baby Julia. The will's residual clause directed that the residue of her estate was to be shared equally between Henry and her children.
Henry Clarke, as executor of his wife's estate, sued his young daughter Nancy in South Carolina State Court, seeking the court's directions regarding the construction of Julia's will. That court ruled that Julia's will worked an equitable conversion of the Connecticut real estate into personal property.
The court directed Henry as executor to sell the Connecticut property and apply the proceeds to his wife's estate.
So Henry and Nancy would share the proceeds of the sale equally.
The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed that decision.
Henry then petitioned a Connecticut probate court for leave to sell Julia's real estate as directed by the South Carolina court order. The Connecticut court applied Connecticut law, ruling that Nancy was baby Julia's sole heir. So Nancy was to inherit the entire Connecticut real estate. The Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors affirmed the probate court's decision.
The United States Supreme Court then granted Henry's petition for a writ of error.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/clarke-v-clarke
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/clarke-v-clarke
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Clarke v. Clarke
United States Supreme Court
178 U.S. 186 (1900)
Does a will written in one state govern the inheritance of land in another state? The United States Supreme Court inherited this issue when it took up the late nineteenth century case of Clarke versus Clarke.
Julia Clarke, a South Carolina resident, died. Julia was survived by her husband, Henry, and two daughters, five year old Nancy, and a two month old also named Julia. Baby Julia died a few months later.
Missus Clarke's estate included real and personal property, including real estate in Connecticut. Missus Clarke had executed a will before she had baby Julia. The will's residual clause directed that the residue of her estate was to be shared equally between Henry and her children.
Henry Clarke, as executor of his wife's estate, sued his young daughter Nancy in South Carolina State Court, seeking the court's directions regarding the construction of Julia's will. That court ruled that Julia's will worked an equitable conversion of the Connecticut real estate into personal property.
The court directed Henry as executor to sell the Connecticut property and apply the proceeds to his wife's estate.
So Henry and Nancy would share the proceeds of the sale equally.
The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed that decision.
Henry then petitioned a Connecticut probate court for leave to sell Julia's real estate as directed by the South Carolina court order. The Connecticut court applied Connecticut law, ruling that Nancy was baby Julia's sole heir. So Nancy was to inherit the entire Connecticut real estate. The Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors affirmed the probate court's decision.
The United States Supreme Court then granted Henry's petition for a writ of error.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/clarke-v-clarke
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/clarke-v-clarke
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
