The Twin City star., 1916-05-20

most important property litigations.
He settled the Jones estate. valued at
100000, with four or five conflicting
interests, without litigation. At one
time he was associated in the practice
of law with B. +. MOsely of Chicago.
The Hon. John w. Shenk, judge Of
department six of the superior court Of
Los Angeles county, handed down an
opinion in the case Of the Title Guar.
antee and Trust company versus n. L.
Carrot in April, which is considered
the most important ruling ever made
by Judge in California, so far as the
interest Of colOred people in matters
of their right to acquire and possess
property Is concerned.
II. L. Carrot, the efficient and popu-
lar police officer, purchased a home In
the Angelus Park tract in December,
1915, and was unable to occupy it be-
cause Of temporary restraining order
granted by the superior court at the
time said suit was filed to consummate
a forfeiture Of the title and reconvey-
ance to the Title Guarantee and Trust
company, which entered suit against
Mr.. CARROT. Attorney Willis o. Tyler,
Mr.. CARROTS attorney, filed demur-
rer to the complaint, and the same has
been sustained without leave to amend.
Judge Shenk handed down a written
opinion. He reviewed the contentious
Of plaintiff and defendant in a most
scholarly and exhaustive manner. He
not only found the law to be against
the contention Of the title company,
which had inserted clause in the deed
to the lot when they sold the same to
the mense grantOr Of defendant, Gar
rott, to the effect that 1t was not to be
leased or sold to any person Of African,
Chinese or Japanese descent for pc
riod Of fifteen years. But he had the
courage to express the law in his opin-
ion in terms clear and unmistakable.
We quote from the courts opinion:
"The sole question presented Is this:
Is the clause in the plaintiffs deed void
as an unlawful restriction on aliena-
ton and an unlawful discrimination or
may It be deemed a reasonable re-
straint on alienation and therefore
valid? The condition imposed by the
grantor in the deed in question Is re-
pugnant to the interest created for the
reason that it imposes upon the grantee
limitation on his right to sell to
whomsoever he chooses and impresses
the estate with a burden not otherwise
borne. And there is no possibility OF
a reverter, because the grantor parted
with the fee simple estate, provided
for reversion, and If the restraint were
otherwise valid his remedy would be
on the breach of the condition.
"In addition to the foregoing, It may
be said that other legal questions are
here presented affecting the validity
of said restrictive clause, not as re-
straint on alienation, but as an unlaw'
full discrimination against and as deny
ing equal protection Of the laws to GER
tain classes of citizens.
Section I Of article 1 Of our state
constitution provides as follows: All
men are by nature free and independ-
ent and have certain inalienable rights,
uIuOuS WHlCll dIc tHooC VI oSaoAAAAo
possession and protecting property
Section 21 Of article provides that
no citizen or class of citizens shall be
granted privileges or immunities which
upon the same terms shall not be
granted to all citizens
at appears herein that the defend
ant Is citizen Of the state Of Call
fornia and of the United States. As q
citizen he is entitled to acquire proper
ty' under the state constitution and
to the equal protection Of the laws
under the federal constitution.
ut Is therefore concluded that the
clause I'm the deed In question is not
only contrary to the general policy OF
the law and contrary to the express
provisions of section I'll Of the civic
code, and as such is an unlawful re-
straint on alienation, but also ia unen-
forceable in the courts under the state
and federal constitutions.
"The demurrer Is sustained, without
leave to amend. and injunction Is de-
MED, and the temporary restraining or
der heretofore issued is dissolved"