Evening star., 1929-06-04
REALTY COLOR BAN
UPHELD BY COURT
Supreme Tribunal Refuses to
Review Decision of
Lower Branch.

From the $50 Edition OF Yesterday Star
The Supreme Court yesterday refused
TO review the action of the lower courts
of the District of Columbia sustaining
covenants in deeds to property prohibit
ing its sale to colored persons.
The property in question is dwelling
house at 1928 First street. This and
the adjoining properties were originally
sold in 1904 by Middaugh & Shannon
and were subject to restrictive clause
that the property should never be
rented, leased sold, transferred or
conveyed unto any colored person."
This house was sold to Henry A. Cornish,
a colored person. Patrick O"Donohue
and IL other owners of the adjoining
lots brought suit to enjoin Cornish from
holding title or possession of the prem
ises in violation Of the restriction.
Validity Of Covenants Upheld.
The second case concerned property
on Randolph place. Here 101 residents
in the vicinity entered into an agree
properties shall be used or occupied
by, or sold, conveyed, leased, rented or
given to any colored person"
The Supreme Court of the District of
Columbia in both cases upheld the
validity of the restrictive covenants, and
this was affirmed by the Court of Ap-
peals Of the District of Columbia.
The colored purchasers, represented
by Louis Marshall of New York and
William E. Leahy Of the District of Co
lumbia, petitioned the Supreme Court to
| review the decisions of the Court of Ap-
peals Of the District of Columbia, main
tanning that the agreements constituted
an unlawful restraint of alienation of
| property and an unlawful restraint Of
| trade, contrary to public policy They
| further argued that the covenants we're
| so contrary to public policy and to the
| spirit of the Constitution, and so un-
reasonable and discriminatory that the
| court of equity cannot enforce them
/ without doing violence to the funda-
mental conception of justice. With ref
/ erence to the deed given by Middaugh
& Shannon, they argued that the right
| to an injunction restraining the colored
| persons from acquiring the property is
| negatived by the fact that the deed con-
! tained a provision that if the property is
| rented, leased, sold, transferred or con-
veyed to any colored person, then the
seller must pay penalty of $4,000 and
| that this penalty was intended to be a
substitute for any injunctive right which
the other purchasers of the property
might have against the offending seller.
Earlier Case Dismissed.
The complaining neighbors. repre-
sented by Jesse c. Atkins. maintained
in opposition that the case did not in
volve subsequental constitutional
| question, nor question of general i'm
portance, that these restrictive cove
nanSs were not against public policy in
the District of Columbia, but that on
the contrary the public policy of the
District of Columbia permits and recog-
nizes as necessary the segregation of
colored persons and white persons under
certain conditions
These questions were once before
brought to the Supreme Court in the
case of Corrigan VS.. Buckley. But that
case was dismissed for lack of jurisdic-
ton. The court did not pass on the
merits of the contentious, because the
appellant there sought to bring the
case before the Supreme Court on ap-
peal. instead of by a preliminary appli-
| cation to review the decision of the
Court of Appeals of the District of
Columbia.