Schulte v. Starks, 45.
| Decision Date | 01 April 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 45.,45. |
| Citation | 238 Mich. 102,213 N.W. 102 |
| Parties | SCHULTE et al. v. STARKS et ux. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Leland W. Carr, Judge.
Action by Frank A. Schulte and others against William H. Starks and wife. From a decree for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.Walter H. Stowers, of Detroit (James R. Neill, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellants.
Lynch & Lovett, of Detroit, for appellees.
It is settled by former decisions of this court that a restraint upon occupancy of the lots of a subdivision by colored persons is valid and enforceable (Parmalee v. Morris, 218 Mich. 625, 188 N. W. 330, 38 A. L. R. 1180), although a restraint upon alienation to a colored person is void (Porter v. Barrett, 233 Mich. 373, 206 N. W. 532, 42 A. L. R. 1267). The fact that defendants are colored persons is established by their own admissions while on the witness stand and by the finding to that effect by the trial judge who saw them in court. The record does disclose, however, that Mrs, Starks is quite light colored, and she testified that many many times she has been taken for a white woman. Mr. Starks is a parlor car conductor on the Pere Marquette. Defendants appear to be thrifty. They own a home on Beniteau street, where they have lived eight years, and they own other property which they rent. In the summer of 1925, defendant purchased a lot on Lakewood avenue in John A. Hager's Oneida Park subdivision adjoining that owned by the individual plaintiffs; the negotiations being conducted by Mrs Starks. They paid $3,800 cash for it and took title to it. They erected a house on it at a cost of $14,000 which was also paid for in cash. The district is a high-class residential district, and the plaintiff association is made up of many of its residents. Upon learning that defendants were colored, the association wrote to them two letters, which do not appear in the record, but which evidently questions defendants' right to occupy the residence. These letters were not specifically replied to, although defendants did offer to sell, fixing their price at $25,000. This bill was filed, the case advanced and heard, resulting in a decree restraining the occupancy of the house by defendant or others of the colored race.
The restrictions of record are indefinite and ambiguous. We quote them:
‘The restrictions herein contained shall run and continue with the land; and it is agreed between the parties hereto that the said restrictions shall be contained in all other future conveyances of said land situated on said Lakewood boulevard in said subdivision; further, that the granted premises shall not be sold, rented, or leased to any person or class of persons whose ownership or occupancy would be injurious to the locality.’
If we had before us only the restrictions of record, there would be much force in the contention of defendants' counsel that they are too indefinite to be enforced, at least too indefinite to be enforced against these defendants. But the proof is overwhelming that from the inception of the subdivision to the present time there has been followed a consistent plan of exclusion of colored people from the occupancy of lots in the subdivision. Likewise from the beginning to the present those who put the subdivision on the market, their sales agents and employés, and the purchasers of the lots, have consistently construed the restrictions to exclude colored people from occupancy of lots in the subdivision and all purchasers of lots in the subdivision have been so advised, and the prooof is conclusive that defendants are the first to attempt to so intrude. Mr. Hager, who subdivided the property, is now deceased but his son-in-law, who was associated with him in the project, was called as a witness by plaintiffs. He prepared the restrictions after consulting numerous restrictions. He testifies that the object sought was the exclusion of colored people from the subdivision. He assisted in making some of the sales, and he and the sales agent in charge of the subdivision both testify that such was the purpose of the restrictions and that all purchasers were so informed. A large number of purchasers and owners were called as witnesses and uniformly substantiated this claim. These purchasers have for many years so construed the language of the restrictions. We therefore have established by the overwhelming weight of the evidence a plan initiated with the platting of the subdivision and continued to the present time, and likewise a consistent construction of the language of the restrictions by every one connected with the property.
Upon the question of plan it was said by Mr. Justice Steere, speaking for the court in Allen v. City of Detroit, 167 Mich. 464, 133 N. W. 317,36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 890, with the citation of numerous sustaining authorities:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oliver v. Kalamazoo Board of Education
...see Parmalee v. Morris, 218 Mich. 625, 188 N.W. 330 (1922); Porter v. Barrett, 233 Mich. 373, 206 N.W. 532 (1925); Schulte v. Starks, 238 Mich. 102, 213 N.W. 102 (1927); Mrsa v. Reynolds, 317 Mich. 632, 27 N.W.2d 40 (1947); Northwest Civic Ass'n v. Sheldon, 317 Mich. 416, 27 N.W.2d 36 (1947......
-
NAACP v. Lansing Bd. of Ed.
...The Long Road to Humanity, by Stanton A. Coblentz, Library of Congress Catalog No. 58-10603, at pages 339, 340; and Schultz v. Stark, 238 Mich. 102, at 103-104, 213 N.W. 102. Chapter 15 — School Desegregation and the A. A BRIEF BACKGROUND Since ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, ra......
-
White v. White
...sustaining as valid the restrictions before us." The Michigan court reiterated this principle in the later case of Schulte v. Starks, 213 N. W. 102, in which a distinction was drawn between user and alienation. In De Peyster v. Michael, 6 N. Y. 467, 57 Am. Dec. 470, it was held that a condi......
-
White v. White
...us from sustaining as valid the restrictions before us." The Michigan court reiterated this principle in the later case of Schulte v. Starks, 213 N.W. 102, which a distinction was drawn between user and alienation. In De Peyster v. Michael, 6 N. Y. 467, 57 Am.Dec. 470, it was held that a co......