Baugh v. Meckler
This text of 168 F.2d 574 (Baugh v. Meckler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Appellant contracted in 1946 to buy a house which he knew was under a covenant against sale to Negroes. He is a Negro. Though the covenant was plainly unenforceable because the neighborhood was largely colored, appellant refused to perform his contract. On the theory that the contract was “void,” he brought this suit to recover a $500 deposit he had made. He recovered, in the Municipal Court, a judgment which the Municipal Court of Appeals reversed on June 12, 1947. Meckler v. Bough, 53 A.2d 695. Judge Cayton’s opinion in the Court of Appeals rightly states what was then the law, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Hurd v. Hodge, 68 S.Ct. 847, obviously adds no strength to appellant’s case.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
168 F.2d 574, 83 U.S. App. D.C. 400, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2083, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baugh-v-meckler-cadc-1948.