Coleman v. Stewart

Annotate this Case
[S. F. No. 17319. In Bank. Mar. 31, 1949.]

E. D. COLEMAN et al., Respondents, v. THOMAS STEWART et al., Appellants.

COUNSEL

Gladstein, Andersen, Resner, Sawyer & Edises, Bertram Edises and George R. Vaughns for Appellants.

George F. Sharp for Respondents.

OPINION

THE COURT.

This case involves the legality and enforceability of privately imposed restrictions against occupation of a lot of land by non-Caucasians. The trial court enjoined occupance of the lot by defendants, non-Caucasians. Defendants appealed.

[1] Upon the authority of Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), 334 U.S. 1 [68 S. Ct. 836, 92 L. Ed. 1161, 3 A.L.R.2d 441] (see, also, Hurd v. Hodge (1948), 334 U.S. 24 [68 S. Ct. 847, 92 L.Ed. 1187]), holding that such restrictions cannot be enforced through court action, the judgment of the trial court must be reversed. (See Cumings v. Hokr (1948), 31 Cal. 2d 844 [193 P.2d 742]; Cassell v. Hickerson (1948), 31 Cal. 2d 869 [193 P.2d 743]; Davis v. Carter (1948), 31 Cal. 2d 870 [193 P.2d 744]; In re Laws (1948), 31 Cal. 2d 846 [193 P.2d 744]; Lippold v. Johnson (1948), 32 Cal. 2d 892 [197 P.2d 161]; Clayton v. Wilkins (1948), 32 Cal. 2d 895 [197 P.2d 162]; Morin v. Crane (1948), 32 Cal. 2d 896 [197 P.2d 162].)

For the reason above stated the order appealed from is reversed. [33 Cal. 2d 704]

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.