Corrigan v. Buckley
Decision Date | 02 June 1924 |
Docket Number | 4059. |
Citation | 299 F. 899 |
Parties | CORRIGAN et al. v. BUCKLEY. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Submitted April 21, 1924.
Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
James A. Cobb, of Washington, D.C., for appellants.
James S. Easby-Smith, of Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Before ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices, and BARBER, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.
Appellee plaintiff below, filed a bill of complaint to restrain defendant Corrigan from conveying to defendant Curtis certain real estate in the District of Columbia, and to prevent the latter from occupying the same, in violation of a covenant affecting the title to said land, and to compel specific performance of the covenant.
It is alleged in the bill that plaintiff owns an undivided interest in lot 74, square 152, improved by a dwelling house. Defendant Corrigan is the owner of lot 20, square 152, on which is situated a dwelling house; that on June 1, 1921 plaintiff and defendant Corrigan, together with 28 other persons, who were owners of land improved by dwelling houses adjacent to and in the same immediate neighborhood as the above property described, mutually executed and delivered a covenant which was recorded in the office of the recorder of deeds of the District of Columbia, which, after describing the location of the property as a whole, and expressing the desire of the parties to further the interests of said community and neighborhood, provided that:
Plaintiff alleged that thereafter defendant Corrigan entered into a contract with defendant Curtis to sell to the latter a house and lot belonging to the former and included within the covenant; that defendant Curtis is a person of the negro race and blood, and before making the contract had knowledge of the existence and terms of the covenant; and that in executing the contract of sale plaintiff had acted in violation of the terms and conditions of the covenant. Plaintiff alleges that, if the conveyance is made in accordance with the contract of sale, irreparable injury will be done to plaintiff and to other persons who are parties to the indenture or covenant; that plaintiff is without any plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law; and that plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the covenant by means of injunction preventing the defendant from carrying into effect the contract of sale.
Plaintiff accordingly prayed that defendant Corrigan be enjoined for 21 years from the date of the covenant, from carrying out the contract of sale with defendant Curtis, and that Curtis be permanently enjoined, during the same period of time, from taking title to the land, and from occupying, selling, conveying, leasing, renting, or giving the same to a negro, or permitting the same to be used or occupied by any negro.
Defendant Curtis filed a motion to dismiss the bill, on the ground that the covenant is void, in that it deprives defendant and others of property without due process of law, abridges the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and denies the defendants equal protection of law. The court below denied the motion to dismiss the petition, and, defendants electing to stand upon their motion, a decree of injunction was entered, from which this appeal was taken.
Appellant seems to have misconceived the real question here involved. We are not dealing with the validity of a statute, or municipal law, or ordinance; nor are we concerned with the right of a negro to acquire, own, and use property; nor are we confronted with any preexisting rights which are affected by the covenant here in question. The sole issue is the power of a number of landowners to execute and record a covenant running with the land, by which they bind themselves, their heirs and assigns, during a period of 21 years, to prevent any of the land described in the covenant from being...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jones v. Alfred Mayer Co, 645
...violation of certain restrictive covenants in the District of Columbia. The courts of the District had granted relief, see 55 App.D.C. 30, 299 F. 899, and the case reached this Court on appeal. As the opinion in Corrigan specifically recognized, no claim that the covenants could not validly......
-
JONES V. ALFRED H. MAYER CO.
...violation of certain restrictive covenants in the District of Columbia. The courts of the District had granted relief, see 55 App.D.C. 30, 299 F. 899, and the case reached this Court on appeal. As the opinion in Corrigan specifically recognized, no claim that the covenants could not validly......
-
White v. White
...same effect is Queensborough Land Co. v. Cazeaux, 136 La. 724, 67 So. 641, L.R.A. 1916B, 1201, Ann.Cas. 1916D, 1248. In Corrigan v. Buckley, 55 App. D. C. 30, 299 F. 899, it was held that property owners could enter into a running with the land binding themselves, their heirs and assigns, d......
-
Hurd v. Hodge
...covenants expressed in agreements between the owners of land have been upheld by this Court in the following cases: Corrigan v. Buckley, 55 App.D.C. 30, 299 F. 899, appeal dismissed 271 U.S. 323, 46 S.Ct. 521, 70 L.Ed. 969; Russell v. Wallace, 58 App.D.C. 357, 30 F.2d 981, certiorari denied......