Porter v. Johnson

Missouri Court of Appeals
115 S.W.2d 529, 232 Mo. App. 1150 (1938)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A racially restrictive covenant is a valid and enforceable property right that can be enforced through an injunction, and it will not be deemed unenforceable in equity due to changed conditions unless there has been a radical change within the restricted area itself that defeats the covenant's purpose.

Facts:

In May 1921, a group of property owners in a specific block in Kansas City, Missouri, entered into a recorded agreement.
The agreement stipulated that for an initial term of fifteen years, automatically renewable for another fifteen, no part of their property could be owned, occupied, or used by any person of the 'Negro race or descent.'
The agreement was created in response to the increasing number of Black residents moving into the neighborhood just north of the restricted area.
On October 7, 1935, a signatory to the agreement sold a parcel of land within the restricted area to Carl R. Johnson and Carrie Johnson, a Black couple.
The Johnsons purchased and occupied the property with full knowledge of the restrictive covenant.
Since 1921, the neighborhoods surrounding the restricted tract on three sides have become predominantly occupied by Black residents, but the Johnsons were the first Black family to occupy a property within the restricted area itself.

Procedural Posture:

A group of landowners (plaintiffs) filed an action in equity in the trial court of Jackson County, Missouri, against Carl R. Johnson and Carrie Johnson (defendants).
The plaintiffs sought a mandatory injunction to compel the Johnsons to vacate their property and to have their deed cancelled.
The trial court refused to grant the injunction or any relief, entering a judgment for the defendants.
The remaining plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the intermediate court of appeals.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a material change in the racial composition of a neighborhood surrounding a property tract subject to a racially restrictive covenant render that covenant unenforceable in equity?

Opinions:

Majority - Unspecified

No. A change in the racial composition of the surrounding neighborhood does not, by itself, render a racially restrictive covenant unenforceable. Such covenants create valid property rights in the form of an easement, which are enforceable by injunction as a matter of contract. The defense of 'changed conditions' requires proof of a radical change within the covenanted area that defeats the purpose of the restrictions, not merely changes in the surrounding territory. Here, the covenant was created precisely to prevent the encroachment that occurred in the surrounding areas, and it continues to provide substantial value to the plaintiffs. The defendants bought the property with full knowledge of the covenant and cannot now complain of hardship.

Analysis:

This case exemplifies the judicial enforcement of private, racially restrictive covenants prior to the landmark Supreme Court decision in Shelley v. Kraemer. It establishes a very high bar for the 'changed conditions' defense, effectively insulating such covenants from challenges based on evolving neighborhood demographics. By framing the covenant as a sacrosanct property and contract right, the court reinforces the legality of private racial segregation in housing, demonstrating that courts would use their equitable power to uphold such agreements.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Porter v. Johnson (1938)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"