City of Richmond v. Deans
| Decision Date | 14 January 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 2900.,2900. |
| Citation | 37 F.2d 712 |
| Parties | CITY OF RICHMOND et al. v. DEANS. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Lucius F. Cary, of Richmond, Va. (James E. Cannon, of Richmond, Va., on the brief), for appellants.
Alfred E. Cohen and Joseph R. Pollard, both of Richmond, Va., for appellee.
Before PARKER and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges, and McDOWELL, District Judge.
We agree with the learned judge below1 that this case is controlled by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U. S. 60, 38 S. Ct. 16, 62 L. Ed. 149, L. R. A. 1918C, 210, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 1201, and Harmon v. Tyler, 273 U. S. 668, 47 S. Ct. 471, 71 L. Ed. 831, reversing Tyler v. Harmon, 158 La. 439, 104 So. 200. To the same effect as these Supreme Court decisions is the Virginia decision of Irvine v. City of Clifton Forge, 124 Va. 781, 97 S. E. 310, which follows them. Attempt is made to distinguish the case at bar from these cases on the ground that the zoning ordinance here under consideration bases its interdiction on the legal prohibition of intermarriage and not on race or color; but, as the legal prohibition of intermarriage is itself based on race, the question here, in final analysis, is identical with that which the Supreme Court has twice decided in the cases cited.
We have carefully considered the cases of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U. S. 365, 47 S. Ct. 114, 71 L. Ed. 303, 54 A. L. R. 1016, and Zahn v. Board of Public Works, 274 U. S. 325, 47 S. Ct. 594, 71 L. Ed. 1074, upon which defendant relies; but we do not think that they are in point. They deal with the right of a city to forbid the erection of buildings of a particular kind or for a particular use within certain sections of the city, which manifestly is a very different question from that involved here. That the Supreme Court did not consider that the doctrine of Buchanan v. Warley was in any way overruled or limited by Euclid v. Ambler, is shown by the fact that Harmon v. Tyler was decided five months after the latter case, and its decision was expressly based on the former. There was no error, and the decree below is affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Banks v. Housing Authority of City and County of San Francisco
...principally by members of the opposite race, in the absence of written consent of a majority of the latter. City of Richmond v. Deans, 4 Cir., 1930, 37 F.2d 712, 713, affirmed a judgment which enjoined enforcement of an ordinance prohibiting any person from using as a residence any building......
-
Gray v. University of Tennessee
...in deeds, Shelley et ux. v. Kraemer et ux., 334 U.S. 1, 68 S.Ct. 836, 92 L.Ed. 1161; in the housing segregation cases, City of Richmond v. Deans, 4 Cir., 37 F.2d 712, affirmed 281 U.S. 704, 50 S.Ct. 407, 74 L.Ed. 1128; Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60, 38 S.Ct. 16, 62 L.Ed. 149: and in the c......
-
City of Birmingham v. Monk, 13158.
...60, 38 S.Ct. 16, 62 L.Ed. 149; Tyler v. Harmon, 158 La. 439, 104 So. 200; Id., 273 U. S. 668, 47 S.Ct. 471, 71 L.Ed. 831; City of Richmond v. Dean, 4 Cir., 37 F.2d 712; affirmed 281 U.S. 704, 50 S.Ct. 407, 74 L.Ed. 1128; Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 11, 68 S.Ct. 836, 92 L.Ed. 1161; and t......
-
Monk v. City of Birmingham
...arguments cannot stand because the Louisiana Court relied on both and was reversed notwithstanding. In the case of City of Richmond et al. v. Deans, 37 F.2d 712, 713, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Curcuit affirmed the decision of a District Court declaring unconstitutional an ......
-
Fair Housing Past, Present, and Future: Perspectives on Moving Toward Integration.
...courts invalidated those measures. See, e.g., Monk v. City of Birmingham, 185 F.2d 859 (5th Cir. 1950); City of Richmond v. Deans, 37 F.2d 712 (4th Cir.), aff'd per curiam, 281 U.S. 704 (1930); Land Dev. Co. of La. v. City of New Orleans, 17 F.2d 1016 (5th Cir. (5.) 392 U.S. 409 (1968). (6.......