## Facts

- In 1921, approximately thirty white landowners on a block of S Street NW in Washington, D.C., executed a recorded mutual covenant binding themselves, their heirs, and assigns for 21 years.
- The covenant barred the covered properties from being “used, occupied, sold, leased, or given” to any person “of the negro race or blood.”
- In 1922, Irene H. Corrigan, a covenant signatory, contracted to sell her house and lot within the restricted area to Helen Curtis, an African American purchaser.
- John J. Buckley, another signatory homeowner, filed an equity action seeking to enjoin Corrigan from conveying the property in violation of the covenant.
- Corrigan and Curtis moved to dismiss, asserting the covenant was unconstitutional and contrary to public policy and violated federal civil-rights protections.
- The trial court entered an injunction enforcing the covenant and restraining the conveyance to Curtis.
- Corrigan and Curtis appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a reciprocal, recorded restrictive covenant among neighboring landowners barring conveyances to persons “of the negro race or blood” for a stated term was valid and enforceable in equity.
2. Whether judicial enforcement of the covenant by injunction violated the Fifth, Thirteenth, or Fourteenth Amendments.
3. Whether federal civil-rights statutes (including Rev. Stat. §§ 1977–1979) barred private parties from making or enforcing such covenants.
4. Whether the covenant was void as against public policy.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia affirmed the trial court’s decree.
- The court enforced the covenant as a valid restrictive agreement running with the land for the stated term.
- The court rejected constitutional objections, treating the covenant as private action outside the prohibitions of the invoked constitutional provisions.
- The court rejected the asserted federal statutory objections and upheld injunctive relief preventing conveyance in violation of the covenant.

## Legal Principles

- Reciprocal restrictive covenants among landowners, when properly created and intended to bind successors, may be enforced in equity through injunction to prevent breach.
- The Fifth Amendment limits federal governmental action and does not invalidate private agreements between individuals on that basis.
- The Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on slavery and involuntary servitude does not reach a private land-transfer restriction not imposing compulsory service.
- The Fourteenth Amendment’s prohibitions target state action, not purely private conduct.
- Federal civil-rights statutes guaranteeing equal capacity to contract and hold property were not construed to prohibit private parties from entering into racially restrictive covenants or to bar their enforcement in equity.
- Public-policy objections, standing alone, did not defeat enforcement under the applicable property and contract rules applied by the court.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed an injunction enforcing a 21-year racially restrictive covenant, holding that the covenant was an enforceable private property agreement and that the asserted constitutional and federal civil-rights challenges did not bar equitable enforcement against a covenanting owner seeking to convey in violation of the restriction.


Corrigan v. Buckley, 299 F. 899 (D.C. Cir. 1924)