Gandolfo v. Hartman

• Decision Date: 25 January 1892
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
• Parties: GANDOLFO v. HARTMAN et al.

49 F. 181

GANDOLFO v. HARTMAN et al.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. California.

January 25, 1892

Blackstock & Shepherd and Bicknell & Denis, for complainant.

J Marion Brooks, J. Hamer, and E. S. Hall, for defendants.

ROSS District Judge.

The amended bill in this case shows that on the 22d of March 1886, one Steward, for a valuable consideration, conveyed to the complainant a portion of lot 2, block 47, fronting on East Main street in the town of San Buena Ventura, Ventura county, of this state, together with a perpetual right of way over an adjoining alley. The deed also contained the following:

'It is also understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto, their heirs and assigns, that the party of the first part shall never, without the consent of the party of the second part, his heirs or assigns, rent any of the buildings or ground owned by said party of the first part and fronting on said East Main street, to a Chinaman or Chinamen. This agreement shall only apply to that part of lot 2, block 47, aforesaid, lying north of the alley-way hereinbefore described, and fronting on said East Main street. And said party of the second part agrees for himself and heirs that he will never rent any of the property hereby conveyed to a Chinaman or Chinamen.'

The deed was duly recorded in the county in which the property is situate, and subsequently the portion of the lot retained by Steward was purchased of him by the defendant Hartman, who was thereafter about to lease it to the defendants Fong Yet and Sam Choy, who are Chinamen, when the present suit was commenced to enjoin him from so doing.

The federal courts have had frequent occasion to declare null and void hostile and discriminating state and municipal legislation aimed at Chinese residents of this country. But it is urged on behalf of the complainant that, as the present does not present a case of legislation at all, it is not reached by the decision referred to, and that it does not come within any of the inhibitions of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States, which, among other things, declares that no state shall 'deny to any person the equal protection of the laws. ' This inhibition upon the state, as said by Mr. Justice Field, in the case of Ah Kow v. Nunan, 6 Sawy. 552--

'Applies to all the instrumentalities and agencies employed in the administration of its government; to its executive, legislative and judicial departments; and to the subordinate legislative bodies of counties and cities. And the equality of protection thus assured to every one whilst within the United States, from whatever country he may come, or of whatever race or color he may be, implies that not only the courts of the country shall be open to him on the same terms as to all others for the security of his person or property, and prevention or redress of wrongs, and the enforcement of contracts, but that no charges or burdens shall be laid upon him which are not equally borne by others. * * * '

It would be a very narrow construction of the constitutional amendment in question and of the decisions based upon it, and a very restricted application of the broad principles...