St. Paul recorder. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1934-2000, 1948-05-07
Covenants
Continued from Page /.

Continued from Page |.
occupied by colored families since
1882.
The trial court denied the injunc-
ton, but the Missouri Supreme
Court reversed the lower court and
held the agreement binding.
In the Michigan case, Mr.. and
Mrs. Orsol McGhee bought and
moved into premises 1926 Seahaldt
Ave, Detroit. Neighboring prop
erty owners filed suit in the Circuit
Court of Wayne County, which en-
tered n decree directing them to
move from the property within
ninety days. The Supreme Court
of Michigan upheld the decision Of
the Wayne County Circuit Court.
In one Of the District Of Column
biA cases Mr.. and Mrs. James NJ.
Hurd were enjOined from occupying
property at ZIG Bryant st. North
west. In the other Mr.. and Mrs.
Robert H. Rowe, Mr.. and Mrs. Her
bert B. Savage, and Mrs. Pauline
b. Stewart purchased property at
11S, 1874, and $50 Bryant st. North
west, respectively.
The District Court for the Dis
trict Of Columbia declared the deeds
conveying the property TO the Pc
titioneTs null and void and ordered
them 10 vacate their homes. The
United States Court Of Appeals for
the District Of Columbia affirmed
the decisions.
In deciding the Michigan and Mis-
souri, cases, the court said:
1--WE hold that in granting judi
cial enforcement of the restrictive
agreements in these cases, the
States have denied petitioners the
equal protection Of the laws and
that, therefore, the action Of the
state courts cannot stand.
I'VE have noted that freedom
from discrimination by the States
in the enjoyment Of property rights
was among the detectives sought TO
be effectuated by the trainers Of the
Fourteenth Amendment. That such
discrimination has occurred in these
cases Is clear. Because of the race
or cOlors Of these petitioners they
have been denied rights Of owner
ship or occupancy enjoyed as a
matter Of course by other citizens
Of different race and color"
The court dismissed the conten-
ton Of respondents that since the
state courts stand ready to enforce
restrictive covenants excl d n z
white persons from the ownership
or occupancy Of property covered
by such agreements, endorsements
Of covenants excluding colored per.
sons may not be deemed a denial of
equal protection Of the laws to the
cOlored persons who are affected.
This contention does not bear
scrutiny" Chief Justice VinsUn de-
clared.
Likewise the court found no
merit in the suggestion that prop
erty owners who sign such agree
ments are denied equal protection
Of the laws il denied access to the
courts to enforce the terms of re-
strictive covenants and to assert
property rights which the state
courts have held to be created by
such agreements.
THE Constitution cOnfers upon
no individual the right to demand
action by the State which results
in the denial Of equal protection Of
the laws TO other individuals" the
opinion stated.
THE historical context in which
the Fourteenth Amendment became
a part of the Constitution should
not be forgotten" declared Chief
Justice Vinson.
Whatever else the trainers
1 sought to achieve. ii is clear that
the matter Of primary concern was
! the establishment Of equality in the
enjoyment Of basic civil and politi
cal rights and the preservation Of
these rights from discriminator,
action on the part Of the State,
based on consideration Of race or
color. Seventy-fvc years ago thi.
Court announced that the provi
Sions Of the Amendment are to b,
construed with fundamental pur
pose in mind.
Upon full consideration. ",
have concluded that in these case
the States have acted to deny peti
TONERS the equal protection Of tn
laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment. Having so decided
we find il unnecessary to Conside
whether petitioners have also bee
deprived of property without du
process of law or denied privilege
and immunities of citizens Of tn
p United States.
For the reasons stated. tn
Judgment Of the Supreme Cour
Of Missouri and the Judgment c
the Supreme Court Of Michiga
must be reversed"
In the two District Of Commbi
cases, Justice Vinson said the deci
sion in the companion Michiga
and Missouri cases rs clearly in
dicative Of the construction to
given to the relevant provisions q
the Civil Rights Act in their appl