Supreme Court of California Justia
Citation 32 Cal.2d 896
Morin v. Crane

Morin v. Crane , 32 Cal.2d 896

[L. A. No. 20376. In Bank. Sept. 15, 1948.]

CORINNE MORIN et al., Appellants, v. CHARLES CRANE et al., Respondents.


Kilpatrick & Robbins for Appellants.

Loren Miller and Harold J. Sinclair for Respondents.




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.

[End of Volume 32 Cal.2d]

Opinion Information
Wed, 09/15/194832 Cal.2d 896Review - Criminal AppealOpinion issued

1CORINNE MORIN et al., Appellants, v. CHARLES CRANE et al. (Respondent)
2CHARLES CRANE et al. (Respondent)

Sep 15 1948Opinion: Affirmed