This case involves a dispute over the distribution of a trust established in Delaware by a settlor who later became a Florida resident. The residuary legatees are seeking to claim the $400,000 appointed to Elizabeth's children, arguing that the power of appointment was not effectively exercised. The Florida court lacked jurisdiction over an indispensable party, the Delaware trustee, and dismissed the case as to the nonresident defendants. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed that Florida law applied to determine the validity of the trust and power of appointment, but the Delaware Supreme Court ruled that the trust and power of appointment were valid under Delaware law. The lack of in rem jurisdiction in Florida leads to the question of whether a judgment based on that basis is invalid and must be reversed. Therefore, the judgment of the Florida court cannot be sustained as it purports to rest upon jurisdiction over the trust assets.

This case involves a dispute over the validity of an appointment made by Mrs. Donner in Florida in 1949, which designated certain individuals to receive a share of property held by a Delaware trustee upon her death. The dissenting opinion argues that the Florida courts had the authority to determine the validity of the appointment, and therefore, the Delaware courts were wrong to not give full faith and credit to the prior judgment from Florida. The Due Process Clause does not prohibit Florida from determining the validity of Mrs. Donner's appointment as it had significant connections to the state. The Court's decision that Florida lacked jurisdiction over the trustee and nonresident beneficiaries was based on the principles established in Pennoyer v. Neff. However, the ease and speed of communication and the growth of interstate business activity have led to a relaxation of the strict limits on state jurisdiction.

The case involves a testatrix who died in Florida, leaving behind a will and a trust instrument executed in Delaware. The Florida court held that the power of appointment was testamentary in character and failed as a will under Florida law due to lack of requisite witnesses. Therefore, the property passed under the will. The distribution of the assets of the estate cannot be made without determining the validity of the power of appointment, which is integrated with the will and subject to construction and interpretation by the Florida court. The trustee of the trust was in privity with the deceased and had a community of interest with her. Therefore, Florida has the right to make the controlling determination even without personal service over the trustee and those who claim under it. The absent trustee was so identified in interest with the decedent as to represent the same legal right. This is not a suit to impose liability on the trustee or any other absent person, but merely a suit to determine interests in the intangibles.