|
|
Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32 (1940)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32 (1940)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 311 U.S. 20, click here.
Hansberry v. Lee No. 29 Argued October 25, 1940 Decided November 12, 1940 311 U.S. 32
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
Syllabus
Numerous owners of lots in a particular area agreed in writing, each severally with each of the others, that their lots should not be sold to or occupied by Negroes, the effectiveness of the agreement being conditioned, however, upon signing by owners of a specified percentage of the lot frontage. In a case in a state court, tried upon an agreed statement of facts, in which it was stipulated (erroneously) that this condition had been complied with, and in which the issue litigated was whether the agreement had ceased to be enforceable in equity by reason of changes in the restricted area, an owner of one of the lots, suing in behalf of himself and of others in like situation, obtained a decree enjoining violation of the agreement by four individuals, who asserted an interest in the restricted land through another signer of the agreement, but who were not treated by the pleadings or decree as representing others or as foreclosing by their defense the rights of others, and whose interest in defeating the contract did not appear to outweigh their interest in sustaining it.
Held:
1. That others who were privy to the agreement, but not made parties to the litigation, and whose substantial interest was in resisting performance of the agreement, could not be bound by the decree upon the theory that the suit was a class suit in which they were duly represented. Pp. 39, 44.
2. That a decree of the state court in a second, similar suit, adjudging such other persons estopped by the former decree as res judicata from defending upon the ground that the condition precedent of the agreement had not been fulfilled, was in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 40, 44.
372 Ill. 369; 24 N.E.2d 37, reversed.
Certiorari, 309 U.S. 652, to review the affirmance of a decree in equity enjoining a violation of an agreement of lot owners restricting the sale and use of lots in a particular area.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32 (1940) in 311 U.S. 32 311 U.S. 33–311 U.S. 37. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=85D583DARMDXP7V.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32 (1940), in 311 U.S. 32, pp. 311 U.S. 33–311 U.S. 37. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=85D583DARMDXP7V.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32 (1940). cited in 1940, 311 U.S. 32, pp.311 U.S. 33–311 U.S. 37. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=85D583DARMDXP7V.
|