7/29/2019 For BHEBS (Shelley)

1/1

For BHEBS:

SHELLEY V. KRAEMER334 US 1 (1948)

FACTS:On February 6, 1911, out of 39 owners of the property situated in the City of St. Louis,

30 of them signed an agreement which provided for the restriction of any person not of theCaucasian race particularly the Negro or Mongoloids from the use and occupancy of theproperty for a period of 50 years. On August 11, 1945, Petitioner Shelley, a person from theNegro race, bought a property from the aforementioned area from a certain Fitzgerald. Theformer was not aware of the existing restrictive agreement covering the same parcel of land. Asa result, Respondent owners of the property brought a suit in the Circuit Court of St. Louis,praying that Petitioner Shelley be restrained from taking possession of the property he boughtand he be divested of the title. The circuit court denied the prayer on the ground that therestrictive agreement was not final and executory because the agreement reflected the intentionof the owners that it would only become effective until signed by all property owners in the area.Respondents elevated the case to the Supreme Court of Missouri which reversed the decisionof the lower court, holding that the agreement was effective, making it enforceable against

Shelley. As such, the Court directed the circuit court to grant relief to the respondents. Thus thispetition to the US Supreme Court.

ISSUES:1. Whether or not the Supreme Court of Missouri erred in its decision.2. Whether or not Petitioner Shelley is deprived of property without due process of law.

DECISION:The US Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri.As to

the first issue, the US Supreme Court held in in affirmative. The reason for such decision is thefact that restrictive agreement on its own cannot be regarded as violative of any rightsguaranteed to the petitioner under the Fourteenth Amendment. However, there was already a

state action by virtue of the Supreme Court of Missouri through its rendered decision to enforcethe agreement. The Court held that state action includes actions by legislative bodies and alsocourts and judicial officials. In connection with this, petitioners contention that the terms of therestrictive agreement were violation of their right to equal protection did not hold water. Forthese grounds, the Court held that the Supreme Court of Missouri had to be reversed. Anent thesecond issue, the Court found that it is unnecessary to consider whether petitioner had alsobeen deprived of property without due process or law or denied of any other privileges andimmunities granted to the citizens of the United States.