From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baugh v. Meckler

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Jun 14, 1948
168 F.2d 574 (D.C. Cir. 1948)

Opinion

No. 9573.

Argued June 8, 1948.

Decided June 14, 1948.

Appeal from the Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Action by Warren F. Baugh against Mark Meckler and another to recover deposit paid on purchase of real estate. Judgment for plaintiff was reversed by the Municipal Court of Appeals, 53 A.2d 695, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Mr. Philip W. Thomas, of Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Thomas W. Parks, of Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Herman Miller, of Washington, D.C., for appellees.

Before EDGERTON, CLARK, and PROCTOR, Associate Justices.


Appellant 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.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Baugh v. Meckler

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Jun 14, 1948
168 F.2d 574 (D.C. Cir. 1948)
Case details for

Baugh v. Meckler

Case Details

Full title:BAUGH v. MECKLER et al

Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: Jun 14, 1948

Citations

168 F.2d 574 (D.C. Cir. 1948)

Citing Cases

Schwartz v. Rettger

To determine whether a penalty is provided by the terms of a contract, the contract must be considered as a…

Savage v. Parks

These were matters for him to decide and not for the seller. * * There is a vast difference between this case…