From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Davis v. Carter

Supreme Court of California
May 18, 1948
31 Cal.2d 870 (Cal. 1948)

Opinion

Docket No. L.A. 19696.

May 18, 1948.

APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Ruben S. Schmidt (Nos. 19696, 19697) and Thurmond Clarke (Nos. 19783, 19757), Judges. Affirmed.

Lecompte Davis, Alfred F. MacDonald, John F. Poole, E.H. Stayton, Joseph P. Guerin and Kenneth W. Kearney for Appellants.

Robert W. Kenny Attorney General, Clarence A. Linn, Assistant Attorney General, and D.O. McGovney, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Appellants.

Hugh E. Macbeth, Eva M. Mack, Hugh E. Macbeth, Jr., Loren Miller, Harold J. Sinclair, Pacht, Pelton, Warne, Ross Bernhard, George E. Cryer and R. Alston Jones for Respondents.


THE COURT.

These cases, like Cumings v. Hokr, ante, p. 844 [ 193 P.2d 742], Cassell v. Hickerson, ante, p. 869 [ 193 P.2d 743], and In re Laws, ante, p. 846 [ 193 P.2d 744], this day filed, involve the legality and enforceability of privately imposed restrictions against occupation of certain lots of land by persons other than those of the Caucasian race. Upon the authority of Shelley v. Kraemer and McGhee v. Sipes, May 3, 1948, 334 U.S. 1 [68 S.Ct. 836, 92 L.Ed. ___, 16 Law Week 4426] (see also Hurd v. Hodge, May 3, 1948, 334 U.S. 24 [68 S.Ct. 847, 92 L.Ed. ___, 16 Law Week 4432]), holding that such restrictions cannot be enforced through court action, the judgment of the trial court refusing to enforce the restrictions is in each case affirmed.


Summaries of

Davis v. Carter

Supreme Court of California
May 18, 1948
31 Cal.2d 870 (Cal. 1948)
Case details for

Davis v. Carter

Case Details

Full title:EDYTHE G. DAVIS, Appellant, v. BENNY CARTER et al., Respondents; and other…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: May 18, 1948

Citations

31 Cal.2d 870 (Cal. 1948)
193 P.2d 744

Citing Cases

Morin v. Crane

THE COURT. This case, like Cumings v. Hokr (1948), 31 Cal.2d 844 [ 193 P.2d 742]; Cassell v. Hickerson…

Matthews v. Andrade

[1] The attempted enforcement by court action of such privately imposed restrictions is violative of the…