Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

E.D. COLEMAN et al., Respondents, v. THOMAS STEWART et al., Appellants.

THE COURT.

This case involves the legality and enforceability of privately imposed restrictions against occupation of a lot of land by non-Caucasians. The trial court enjoined occupance of the lot by defendants, non-Caucasians. Defendants appealed.

[1] Upon the authority of Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), 334 U.S. 1 [68 S.Ct. 836, 92 L.Ed. 1161, 3 A.L.R.2d 441] (see, also, Hurd v. Hodge (1948), 334 U.S. 24 [68 S.Ct. 847, 92 L.Ed. 1187]), holding that such restrictions cannot be enforced through court action, the judgment of the trial court must be reversed. (See Cumings v. Hokr (1948), 31 Cal.2d 844 [ 193 P.2d 742]; Cassell v. Hickerson (1948), 31 Cal.2d 869 [ 193 P.2d 743]; Davis v. Carter (1948), 31 Cal.2d 870 [ 193 P.2d 744]; In re Laws (1948), 31 Cal.2d 846 [ 193 P.2d 744]; Lippold v. Johnson (1948), 32 Cal.2d 892 [ 197 P.2d 161]; Clayton v. Wilkins (1948), 32 Cal.2d 895 [ 197 P.2d 162]; Morin v. Crane (1948), 32 Cal.2d 896 [ 197 P.2d 162].)

For the reason above stated the order appealed from is reversed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

COLEMAN v. STEWART
(Mar 31, 1949)