Evening star., 1947-10-20
Supreme Court Grants
Review Of Property
Covenant Cases Here
Petitions Challenge
Appeals Court Ruling
UphoIdine Restriction
By Robert K. Welsh

The Supreme Court today
agreed to review two District
cases challenging the legality of
restrictive property covenants,
Attorneys said these are the first
District cases to come before the
nigh court on the question whether
courts can issue injunctions to pro-
sect such property agreements
aimed at preventing colored people
from moving into white neighbor-
hoods. =
In granting petitions for writs Of
cerhorAri on the District cases in
covenants on property on
Bryant street NV, the Supreme
Court announced it would hear at
guments on them Immediately after
hearings on q similar case from De-
troit. Certiorari previously was
granted for the Detroit case as well
as one from st. Louis containing
the same general issues. The court
has not yet indicated when it will
hold hearings on any of the four
cases, including the District cases.
From Circuit Court of Appeals.
The District petitions came before
the Supreme Court on appeal from
a Circuit Court Of Appeals ruling
last May which upheld a District
Court decision in favor of the cove
nant.
They concern a covenant estab-
lished in 1906 for 20 lots in the ION
block Of Bryant street NV. The
covenant in the case Of each lot
states that: said lot shall never
be rented, leased, sold, transferred
or conveyed unto any Negro or COL
ored person under a penalty of
$4,000, which shall be a lien against
said property"
Only seven Of the 20 covenanted
lots are directly involved in the cur
rent proceedings before the Supreme
Court. Three of these were sold to
colored persons by Raphael G.
Urciolo, white real estate operator
who also owns three other parcels
In the same section. Another COW
lot was sold about the same
time by Mr.. and Mrs. Francis X.
Ryan to James M. Hurd, who is
listed in the petition as Mohawk
Indian.
Asked to Void Transactions
As a result of these sales, other
home owners in the covenanted part
of Bryant street asked District Court
to void the transactions, permanent
ly enjoin Mr.. Urciola and Mr.. and
Mrs. Ryan from conveying any OF
the seven lots to a colored person
and order the purchasers to vacate
the premises. The covenant signers
won their case in District Court ane
again in the Court of Appeals last
May by 2-to-1 ruling.
Justices Clark and Miller upheld
the lower court, while Justice Edger.
ton dissented.
Although technically two sepa.
rate petitions were before the Su.
preme Court in the request for writ
of certiorari, they will be argued a.
a consolidated petition by the attor'
neys who took the matter through
District Court and the Court O
Appeals.
Counsel for the covenant signers
have announced they will base theil
arguments principally on the valid.
ity of private contracts and on what
they regard as the weight of lega
precedent on such cases in various
State courts.
Those hoping to have restrictive
covenants declared invalid by the
Supreme Court have announced
they will claim that. enforcement
of such covenants by court fnjunc-
ton violates the due process clause
of the Fifth Amendment and also
the Civil Rights Act. which declares
"all citizens shall have the same
right as is enjoyed by white citizens
to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold
and convey real and personal
property"
Among their other principal argu-
ments are those which contend that
covenant restrictions are contrary to
public policy because they are based
solely on the race or creed of the
buyer, and that the Supreme Court
ruled several years ago that legis-
lative restrictions on acquisition of
property are unconstitutional If
based solely on race. Attorneys for
the petitioners in the pending cases
declare that racial restrictions
which the Government may not i'm
pose through its legislature are
equally forbidden to the Govern
u,ent acting through It's courts"