Techt v.

Hughes

FACTS: Techt’s father, an American citizen, died without executing a will in New York. His
death happened twenty days after the start of war between the United States and Austria-
Hungary. He owned a real property in New York. Techt, one of the decedent’s daughters, was
previously married to a citizen of Austria-Hungary. In effect, she lost her US citizenship under
existing federal law. Having no will, the daughters including Techt wanted to own the real
property that their father left in New York. Under a New York statute, Techt can only inherit the
real property if she either a permitted citizen or an “alien friend”.

Techt’s sister, Hughes, argued that Techt was not entitled to take real property because
Techt was an “alien enemy” due to the war between US and Austria-Hungary.

Techt argued that she could still take the property because of a 1848 treaty between the
United States and Austria. This treaty provided that nationals of either state could take real
property by descent. Being the daughter of an American father, Techt argues that she is
entitled.

According to the Court of Appeals, Techt was not an alien friend so she is not entitled to
what the New York statute provides. Her claim solely depends on whether the treaty was still in
force after the outbreak of war.

ISSUES: Whether the courts must decide if a provision involved in a controversy is inconsistent
with national policy or safety, considering that a treaty between states at war has not been
denounced?

Whether Techt is entitled to hold the real property?

RULING: Yes. The court must decide whether a provision involved in a controversy is
inconsistent with national policy or safety since the treaty between states at war has not been
denounced. If this treaty is in force, it implies that it is part of the supreme law of the land.

Yes, Techt is entitled to hold the real property by virtue of the treaty. In this case, the
court finds that there is nothing incompatible with the policy of the government, safety of the
nation, or the maintenance of the war in the enforcement of this treaty. The treaty between
them is still in force and must be followed. Some have ruled that treaties end ipso facto at time
of war. But in this case, the court found that treaties end only to the extent that their execution
is incompatible with the war

Quoting the court, “The plaintiff is a resident; but even if she were a non-resident, and
were within the hostile territory, the policy of the nation would not divest her of the title whether
acquired before the war or later.