Corrigan v. Buckley
271 U.S. 323 (1926)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Corrigan v. Buckley, 271 U.S. 323 (1926)

Corrigan v. Buckley

No. 104

Argued January 8, 1926

Decided May 24, 1926

271 U.S. 323

Syllabus

1. This Court has no jurisdiction of an appeal from the court of appeals of the District of Columbia founded on alleged constitutional questions so unsubstantial as to be plainly without color of merit and frivolous. P. 271 U. S. 329.

2. The Fifth Amendment is a limitation upon the powers of the General government, and is not directed against individuals. P. 271 U. S. 330.

3. The Thirteenth Amendment denouncing slavery and involuntary servitude, that is, a condition of enforced compulsory service of one to another, does not in other matters protect the individual rights of persons of the negro race. Id.

4. The prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment have reference to state action exclusively, and not to any action of private individuals. Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject matter of the Amendment. Id.

5 Not by any of these Amendments, nor by §§ 1977-1979 Rev.Stats., are private lot owners prohibited from entering into twenty-one year mutual covenants not to sell to any person of negro blood or race. P. 271 U. S. 331.

6. The contention that such an indenture is void as against public policy does not involve the construction or application of the Constitution or draw in question the construction of the above sections of the Revised Statutes, and therefore affords no basis for an appeal to this Court under § 250, Judicial Code, from a decree of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. P. 271 U. S. 330.

7. A contention, to constitute ground for appeal, should be raised by the petition for appeal and assignment of errors. P. 271 U. S. 331.

8. Mere error of a court in a judgment entered after full hearing does not constitute a denial of due process of law. Id.

Appeal from 55 App.D.C. 30; 299 Fed. 899; dismissed.

Appeal from a decree of the court of appeals of the District of Columbia, which affirmed a decree of the Supreme Court of the District in favor of Buckley in a suit to enjoin the defendant Corrigan from selling a lot

Page 271 U. S. 324

in Washington to the defendant Curtis, in violation of an indenture entered into by Buckley, Corrigan, and other landowners whereby they mutually covenanted and bound themselves, their heirs and assigns, for twenty-one years, not to sell to any person of negro race or blood.

Page 271 U. S. 327

Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.