Morin v. Crane

California Supreme Court

Morin v. Crane

197 P.2d 162, 32 Cal. 2d 896, 1948 Cal. LEXIS 283

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 15, 1948

DocketL. A. 20376

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 197 P.2d 162 (Morin v. Crane) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morin v. Crane, 197 P.2d 162, 32 Cal. 2d 896, 1948 Cal. LEXIS 283 (Cal. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

This case, like 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, ante, p. 892 [197 P.2d 161]; and Clayton v. Wilkins, ante, p. 895 [197 P.2d 162], involves the legality and enforceability of privately imposed restrictions against occupation of certain lots of land by persons other than those of the Caucasian race. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained without leave to amend and judgment of dismissal was entered. Plaintiffs appealed.

Counsel for the respective parties have agreed that the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), 334 U.S. 1 [68 S.Ct. 836, 92 L.Ed. -] (see also Hurd v. Hodge (1948), 334 U.S. 24 [68 S.Ct. 847, 92 L.Ed. -]), holding that such restrictions cannot be enforced through court action, is controlling here. Accordingly, we do not reach the question as to whether any tenable cause of action for relief or recovery other than specific enforcement of the racial restrictions is, or could be, stated.

It follows that the judgment of the trial court refusing to enforce restrictions should be, and it is hereby, affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE COURT.

This case, like 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, ante, p. 892 [197 P.2d 161]; and Clayton v. Wilkins, ante, p. 895 [197 P.2d 162], involves the legality and enforceability of privately imposed restrictions against occupation of certain lots of land by persons other than those of the Caucasian race. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained without leave to amend and judgment of dismissal was entered. Plaintiffs appealed.

Counsel for the respective parties have agreed that the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), 334 U.S. 1 [68 S.Ct. 836, 92 L.Ed. -] (see also Hurd v. Hodge (1948), 334 U.S. 24 [68 S.Ct. 847, 92 L.Ed. -]), holding that such restrictions cannot be enforced through court action, is controlling here. Accordingly, we do not reach the question as to whether any tenable cause of action for relief or recovery other than specific enforcement of the racial restrictions is, or could be, stated.

It follows that the judgment of the trial court refusing to enforce restrictions should be, and it is hereby, affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 P.2d 162, 32 Cal. 2d 896, 1948 Cal. LEXIS 283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morin-v-crane-cal-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack