Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

168 F.2d 574

Docket No. 9573.

Baugh v. Meckler

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued June 8, 1948.

Decided June 14, 1948.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1948-06-14

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 1953

3 state decisions

2 counsel of record

Relies on Hurd v. Hodge · Meckler v. Baugh

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1948-06-14

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*575Mr. Philip W. Thomas, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Thomas W. Parks, of Washington, D. G, was on the brief, for appellant.

¶2Mr. Herman Miller, of Washington, D. G, for appellees.

¶3Before EDGERTON, CLARK, and PROCTOR, Associate Justices.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Appellant 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.

¶6Affirmed.

/168/f2d/574 · .json · Public domain