Ralph D. Cohn Inc. v. Trawick., 614.
| Decision Date | 01 September 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 614.,614. |
| Citation | 60 A.2d 926 |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
| Parties | RALPH D. COHN, Inc. v. TRAWICK. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from the Municipal Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Division.
Action by Lonnie H. Trawick against Ralph D. Cohn, Inc., to recover from defendant, a broker, the cash deposit plaintiff placed with broker at time of execution of a contract for the purchase of real estate, which contract plaintiff, a Negro, had refused to consummate because property was subject to a covenant against a sale to Negroes. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Arthur L. Willcher, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
George E. C. Hayes, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before CAYTON, Chief Judge, and HOOD and CLAGETT, Associate Judges
Plaintiff, a Negro, entered into a contract for the purchase of real estate. Before the contract was finally consummated he learned that the property was subject to a covenant, the purported effect of which was that no sale if the property should be made to a Negro. Thereupon he refused to complete the contract and brought this action to recover from defendant, the broker who negotiated the contract, the cash deposit placed with the broker at time of execution of the contract.
The trial court found as a fact that plaintiff had no knowledge of the covenant until settlement of the contract was in progress. The owner of the property admitted she was a party to and had knowledge of the covenant. Judgment was for plaintiff and this appeal followed.
It is contended that the covenant constituted no cloud on title and therefore furnished no justifiable basis for plaintiff's refusal to complete the contract. This argument is based on two propositions. First, the Supreme Court, in Hurd v. Hodge, 334 U.S. 24, 68 S.Ct. 847, has ruled that covenants of this type are contrary to public policy and will not be enforced by the courts. Second, the covenant by its own terms was to lose its binding effect in the event any of the property described in the covenant was sold to a Negro, and that such event had occurred prior to execution of the contract of purchase in question.
With respect to the ruling in Hurd v. Hodge, that case was not decided by the Supreme Court until May 3, 1948, more than a year after the transaction here involved took place. At the time the contract was signed Hurd v. Hodge was pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and thereafter that court, following its previous decisions, upheld the validity and enforcement of the covenant. Hurd v. Hodge, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 180, 162 F.2d 233. Assuming the correctness of appellant's argument that the effect of the Supreme Court decision is that such covenants are, and have been since 1866, unenforceable, nevertheless at the time of this transaction plaintiff was faced with a line of decisions by the highest court of the District of Columbia upholding such covenants.
With respect to the argument that by the happening of an event prior to the date of the contract the covenant by its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gauss v. Kirk
...the deposit in the hands of his agent, as did the Bowens in the case at bar. Nor was such a claim made in Ralph D. Cohn, Inc., v. Trawick, D.C.Mun.App., 1948, 60 A.2d 926, relied upon below. In Metzler v. Iacone, D.C.Mun.App., 1947, 55 A.2d 81, also relied upon, no question was raised or de......
-
Hiltpold v. Stern
...v. Schwartz, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 302, 177 F.2d 641, 14 A.L.R.2d 1337; Turner v. Brewer, 54 App.D.C. 363, 298 F. 685; Ralph D. Cohn, Inc. v. Trawick, D.C.Mun.App., 60 A.2d 926; Borzillo v. Thompson, D.C.Mun.App., 57 A. 2d 195. 4. Hill v. Marston, 65 App.D.C. 250, 82 F.2d 856; Hammett v. Ruby Lee......
-
Wagman v. Lee
... ... v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 417 F.2d 659, 663 (9th Cir.1969) (punitive damages may be ... See Cohn, Inc. v. Trawick, 60 A.2d 926, 927 ... (D.C.1948) ... ...
-
Savage v. Parks, 1383.
...bargained for: a home and property free of the cloud of restriction. Directly applicable here is what we said in Ralph D. Cohn, Inc., v. Trawick, D.C.Mun. App., 60 A.2d 926, 927: "Certainly the existence of such a covenant was of vital importance to him. He might decide to seek legal advice......