Correll v. Earley, 34141

Citation237 P.2d 1017,205 Okla. 366
Decision Date20 November 1951
Docket NumberNo. 34141,34141
PartiesCORRELL et al. v. EARLEY et al.
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where owners of real property covered by restrictive covenants having for their purpose exclusion of persons of designated race or color from ownership or occupancy of such property, were willing to sell to Negro purchasers, who were willing to purchase, action of State court in the enforcement of such restrictive covenants would constitute acts of the State within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and would deny purchasers equal protection of the laws.

2. Refusal of the State courts to enforce agreements with restrictive covenants prohibiting sales of property to persons solely because of the race or color of purchasers is not a denial of equal protection of the laws, since the Constitution of the United States confers on no person the right to demand action by the State which would result in the denial of equal protection of the laws to other persons.

3. In passing upon a demurrer thereto, a petition must be liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff, and all facts well pleaded, together with all inferences which may be reasonably drawn therefrom, must be taken as admitted to be true for the purposes of a demurrer.

4. If a contract between lot owners in a given block of city property, despite its restrictive covenants, is valid between the contracting parties, and lot owners, and if defendants conspire to violate it, with knowledge and intention that, in so doing, they will cause damage to the plaintiff, and they consummate the scheme and cause the intended damage, defendants would be liable for such damages as plaintiff sustains, and it is error for the trial court to sustain a general demurrer to a petition alleging such conspiracy.

5. Record examined and held: that plaintiffs' petition as amended stated a cause of action for damages, and the trial court erred in sustaining a general demurrer thereto.

Robert W. Maupin, Morton Perry, both of Oklahoma City, and Denham A. Maupin, of Alexandria, Va., for plaintiffs in error.

Harry James, Edward Earley, both of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error Edward Earley.

A. L. Beckett, of Oklahoma City, for defendants in error Clarence Mayfield, Alberta Mayfield, G. Douglas Waterford and Hazel Waterford.

Hal D. Leaming, Rollie D. Thedford, both of Oklahoma City, for defendants in error E. T. Fent, Elizabeth Fent, I. W. Coulter and Carrie E. Coulter.

GIBSON, Justice.

The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.

This case was decided on demurrers to an amended petition, as amended, filed by plaintiffs wherein they allege ownership of four lots in Block 11 of Oak Park Addition to Oklahoma City, which they occupied as a homestead; that in 1926 they entered into a written contract with certain other property owners in said block wherein it was covenanted that no owner, his heirs, successors or assigns should sell, lease or give away any property in said block to any person of the Negro or African race. The contract further provides that any deed or conveyance made in violation of the agreement 'shall be void and may be set aside on the petition of one or more of the parties.' Said contract was recorded on May 6, 1926.

It was further alleged that defendants, on or about April 6, 1945, entered into a conspiracy to evade and destroy the effect and restrictive covenants of said contract with the wrongful, malicious and wilful purpose of injuring and damaging the value of plaintiffs' properties in Block 11; that defendant white owners of certain lots conveyed to defendant Earley, who was without financial responsibility, and that it was agreed that Earley was to encumber the property for as much loan as it would bear and then convey to Negroes, and that Earley did thereafter convey to certain named defendants who were Negroes.

It was further alleged that plaintiffs had been put to the expense of $1,000 attorney fees to enforce the covenants of the contract and that by reason of the wilful, malicious and wanton acts of defendants they should be assessed with punitive damages in the sum of $10,000.

The first cause of action named defendants I. W. Coulter and his wife as the grantors to Earley, and defendants G. Douglas Waterford and Hazel, his wife, who were Negroes, as grantees in a deed executed by Earley.

The second cause of action named E. T. Fent and Elizabeth, his wife, as grantors to Earley, and alleged that he conveyed to Clarence and Alberta Mayfield, husband and wife, who were Negroes. The same allegations of conspiracy and the amounts of damages were set up as against the defendants in this second cause of action. It was further prayed that the deeds mentioned be cancelled and that judgment for the alleged damages be decreed a lien on the properties sold to the named defendants and that said properties be sold to satisfy the liens. Copies of the restrictive contract and all deeds mentioned were attached as exhibits.

Various motions and demurrers were filed by the several defendants, and plaintiffs assign rulings thereon as error, but in view of our decision we need not consider these assignments.

Plaintiffs filed an amended petition in amplification of the conspiracy charge. Later, plaintiffs filed an amendment to their petition and amended petition, The amendment contains the following allegations: 'That, not withstanding the contract named in said original petition, and the restrictions, solemn obligations and conditions therein set out; the defendants herein and each of them, entered into a conspiracy, and did conspire together, and with each other, with a total disregard for the rights of these plaintiffs, and all other property owners in the block described in said petition, to destroy the restrictions, terms and conditions of said contract, in the following particulars: That it is well known generally, and is, and was well known by the said defendants, and each of them; that the purchase, rental, or leasing of real property by any person or persons of African decent, will always cause the remainder of the property in the same block to decrease in value at least from fifty to seventy-five percent. That the defendant Earley is and was, at all times mentioned herein, a person without financial standing and responsibility, without any respect for the rights of white people residing in said block, that he is a person of no conciencious principles, that he is a person who is easily persuaded by other people who have a conniving plan or scheme, or purpose, and was therefore selected by his co-defendants, and each of them, to act, and did act as a tool, hinchman, stool pigeon or cats paw to accomplish the conspiracy herein alleged.'

It is further alleged that prior to the acts and conduct of defendants as alleged, plaintiffs' property had a reasonable market value of $16,000, but on account of and due to the acts of defendants and each of them the property now has a value not to exceed $6000. Plaintiffs pray judgment against defendants on each cause of action in sum of $10,000. Thus it would appear that in their amendments plaintiffs abandoned their claim of punitive damages set forth in their original petition, and all damages sought are for actual damages resulting from the alleged conspiracy.

During the pendency of this action and on May 3, 1948, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Shelley v. Kraemer and McGhee v. Sipes, 334 U.S. 1, 68 S.Ct. 836, 92 L.Ed. 1161; and Hurd v. Hodge, 334 U.S. 24, 68 S.Ct. 847, 92 L.Ed. 1187, wherein it was held that contracts containing restrictive covenants which have for their purpose the exclusion of persons of designated race or color from the ownership or occupancy of real property offend the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The circumstances presented in the case at bar do not differ materially from the above mentioned cases.

In the case at bar, just as in the Shelley case, the restriction of the agreement was directed toward a designated class of persons and it seeks to determine who may or may not own or make use of the properties and the excluded class is defined wholly in terms of race or color.

The Supreme Court of the United States in the above opinions held that such restrictive covenants based on race or color standing alone did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment so long as the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Dowell v. BD. OF EDUC. OF OKLAHOMA CITY PUB. SCH., No. CIV-61-9452-B.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma
    • November 7, 1991
    ...334 U.S. 1, 68 S.Ct. 836, 92 L.Ed. 1161 (1948). This decision was echoed by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in 1951. Correll v. Earley, 205 Okla. 366, 237 P.2d 1017 (1951). In 1954, the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Educ., 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954),......
  • Barrows v. Jackson
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 15, 1953
    ...a white seller, an intermediate straw man, and a non-Caucasian purchaser for a conspiracy to violate the covenant, Correll v. Earley, 205 Okl. 366, 237 P.2d 1017. The trial court in the case here held a party to a covenant restricting use and occupancy2 of real estate to Caucasians could no......
  • Dowell v. Okl. City Public Schools, Ind. Dist. 89
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma
    • December 9, 1987
    ...U.S. 1, 68 S.Ct. 836, 92 L.Ed. 1161 (1948), restrictive covenants were rendered unenforceable in the courts. See also Correll v. Earley, 205 Okl. 366, 237 P.2d 1017 (1951). In 1954, the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 9......
  • Barrows v. Jackson
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • August 6, 1952
    ...has arisen in Weiss v. Leaon, 1949, 359 Mo. 1054, 225 S.W.2d 127, Roberts v. Curtis, D.C.Dist.Col.1950, 93 F.Supp. 604, Correll v. Earley, Okl. 1951, 237 P.2d 1017, and Phillips v. Naff, 1952, 332 Mich. 389, 52 N.W.2d 158. 18 Weiss v. Leaon 19 was an action to enforce a racial restrictive c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT