gno.law

Coleman v. Stewart

California Supreme Court · S. F. No. 17319 · 1949-03-31 · Published · 33 Cal. 2d 703 · 204 P.2d 7 · 1949 Cal. LEXIS 231

E. D. COLEMAN v. THOMAS STEWART

Area
civil

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

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.

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 óf 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.

Cites, in this corpus