Buchanan v. Warley

245 U.S. 60 (1916)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P brought an action for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of certain real estate situated in the City of Louisville. The purchase contract contained the following clause: 'I shall not be required to accept a deed to the above property or to pay for said property unless I have the right under the laws of the State of Kentucky and the City of Louisville to occupy said property as a residence.' Warley (D) refused to buy the property on the grounds that he is a colored person, and that on the block of which the lot in controversy is a part there are ten residences, eight of which at the time of the making of the contract were occupied by white people, and only two (those nearest the lot in question) were occupied by colored people, and that under and by virtue of the ordinance of the City of Louisville, approved May 11, 1914, he would not be allowed to occupy the lot as a place of residence. P claimed that the ordinance was in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and hence no defense to the action for specific performance of the contract. The Court of Appeals of Kentucky held the ordinance valid and of itself a complete defense to the action. By the first section of the ordinance it is made unlawful for any colored person to move into and occupy as a residence, place of abode, or to establish and maintain as a place of public assembly any house upon any block upon which a greater number of houses are occupied as residences, places of abode, or places of public assembly by white people than are occupied as residences, places of abode, or places of public assembly by colored people. Section 2 provides that it shall be unlawful for any white person to move into and occupy as a residence, place of abode, or to establish and maintain as a place of public assembly any house upon any block upon which a greater number of houses are occupied as residences, places of abode or places of public assembly by colored people than are occupied as residences, places of abode or places of public assembly by white people. The ordinance allowed any current situation of housing with respect to race to stay in place. The property was sold by P, a white man, on the terms stated, to a D, a colored man; the action for specific performance was entertained in both courts. Both courts ruled the ordinance was valid. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.