ORIGINAL DECREE

STATE OF ILLINOIS,

COUNTY OF COOK.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY.

Anna M. Lee, Edward L. Govanus, et al.,
vs.
Carl A. Hansberry, Nannie L. Hansberry, et al.
General Number 37 C 6804 in Chancery

DECREE.

1. Now comes the plaintiffs, Anna M. Lee, a widow, Edward L. Govanus, Esther Govanus, his wife, Louise G. Anderson, a widow, Lyman M. Anderson, her son, and Kathryn Luttrell, a spinster, by Charles A. Churan, Schuyler & Hennessey, and Angus Roy Shannon, their attorneys, and the defendants, Carl A. Hansberry, and Nannie L. Hansberry, his wife, by C. Francis Stradford, their attorney; the defendants, Jay B. Crook and Hallie C. Crook, his wife, by Arthur A. Basse, their attorney; defendant James Joseph Burke, by Loring B. Moore, his attorney; the defendants, Harry E. Pace and Supreme Liberty Life Insurance Company, a corporation, by Earl B. Dickerson and Truman K. Gibson, Jr., their attorneys and the defendant, Israel Katz, by Irvin C. Mollison, his attorney.

2. And this cause coming on to be heard upon the complaint and amendment thereto, the answers of the defendants, James Joseph Burke, Harry H. Pace, Israel Katz and Supreme Liberty Life Insurance Company; the amended answers of the defendants, Carl A. Hansberry, Nannie L. Hansberry, Jay B. Crook and Hallie C. Crook, the objections of

103

plaintiffs to the amended answer of defendants, Carl A. Hansberry, Nannie L. Hansberry, their objections to the several answers of the defendants, Harry E. Pace, Supreme Liberty Life Insurance Company and Israel Katz; the objections to the amended answer of the defendants, Jay B. Crook and Hallie C. Crook, the reply of the plaintiffs to the amended answers of the defendants Carl A. Hansberry, Nannie L. Hansberry, Jay B. Crook and Hallie C. Crook, and to the respective answers of the defendants, James Joseph Burke, Israel Katz and Supreme Liberty Life Insurance Company, and the rejoinder of the defendant, James Joseph Burke, to said reply and upon the exhibits and proofs received in evidence.

3. And the Court having heard and considered the evidence and proofs offered and taken, the arguments of the attorneys for the respective parties, the pleadings and exhibits in the case, and being now fully advised in the premises, finds that it has jurisdiction of the subject-matter of this cause of the parties thereto; that the material allegations of the plaintiffs' Complaint as amended are true; that the equities of this cause are with the plaintiffs and that said plaintiffs are entitled to the relief prayed for in their Complaint as amended, and that the temporary injunction heretofore entered, be and it is hereby made permanent.

4. And the Court further finds that the plaintiffs and the defendants are all residents of the City of Chicago, County of Cook and State of Illinois; that on, to-wit: the 30th day of September, A. D. 1927, more than five hundred (500) white persons, owners of real estate on the one or the other side of Evans, Langley, Champlain, St. Lawrence, Rhodes, Eber-

104

hart, Vernon and South Park Avenues between 60th and 63rd Streets, and on 60th, 61st and 62nd Streets, between South Park Avenue and Cottage Grove Avenues in the City of Chicago, County of Cook and State of Illinois, entered into, signed and executed a certain written agreement referred to as "Restrictive Agreement," which, except as to the signatures and notarizations thereof, is in words and figures as follows, to-wit:

"This Agreement entered into this 30th day of September, 1927, by and between the undersigned owners of land on the one or the other side of Evans, Langley, Champlain, St. Lawrence, Rhodes, Eberhart, Vernon and South Park Avenues, between 60th and 63rd Streets and on 60th, 61st and 62nd Streets between South Park and Cottage Grove Avenues, in the City of Chicago, witnesseth, that

And, Whereas, the parties hereto feel that the restrictions and covenants hereinafter imposed and created are for the best interests of all the parties hereto and of the property hereinafter described.

In Consideration of the premises and of the mutual covenants hereinafter made, and of the sum of Five Dollars ($5.00) in hand paid to each of the parties hereto by each of the other parties hereto, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged each party as owner of the parcel of land above described immediately under his name, does hereby covenant and agree with each and every other of the parties hereto, that his said parcel is now and until January 1st, 1948, and thereafter until this agreement shall be abrogated as hereinafter provided, shall be subject to the restrictions and provisions hereinafter set forth, and that he will make no sale, contract of sale, conveyance, lease or agreement and give no

106

license or permission in violation of such restriction or provisions, which are as follows:

1. The restriction that no part of said premises shall in any manner be used or occupied directly or indirectly by any negro or negroes, provided that this restriction shall not prevent the occupation, during the period of their employment as janitors' or Chauffeurs' quarters in the basement or in a barn or garage in the rear, or of servants' quarters by negro janitors, employed as such for service in and about the chauffeurs or house servants, respectively, actually employed as such for service in and about the premises by the rightful owner or occupant of said premises.

2. The restriction that no part of said premises shall be sold, given, conveyed or leased to any negro or negroes, and no permission or license to use or occupy any part thereof shall be given to any negro except house servants or janitors or chauffeurs employed thereon as aforesaid.

The covenants, restrictions, and agreements herein contained shall be considered as appurtenant to and running with the land, and shall be binding upon and for the benefit of each party hereto and may be enforced by any of the parties hereto by any permissible legal or equitable proceedings, including proceedings to enjoin violation and for specific performance; provided, however, that in any action brought to set aside any deed made in violation of any of the provisions of this agreement, it shall be a good defense thereto that prior to the institution of each suit, the title to the premises then in question had become vested in, and was then owned by a corporation or a white person, for value; and provided further, that the lien of no mortgage or trust deed in the nature of a mortgage shall be impaired

106

or invalidated by reason of the breach of any of the provisions of this agreement, whether any such breach shall have occurred prior or subsequent to the recording of any such mortgage or trust deed; and provided further, that nothing contained in the foregoing provisos shall in any manner impair the right of any person or persons interested to enforce at all times and against all persons the restrictions in this agreement contained prohibiting the use or occupation of all or any part of said premises by a negro or negroes.

This agreement and the restrictions herein contained shall be of no force or effect unless this agreement or a substantially similar agreement, shall be signed by the owners above described, or their heirs or assigns, and recorded in the office of the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County, Illinois, on or before December 31, 1928. Provided, however, that if the owner of any of said parcels or of any part thereof shall be under disability as, for example, when the title is held, without such power, by testamentary trustees or other fiduciaries, the frontage so owned shall be treated as though the owners thereof had power to sign, and have signed this agreement, for the purpose of determining whether this agreement becomes effective or not under the provisions of this paragraph.

It is understood that for convenience, a number of counter-part or concurrent instruments have been prepared of even date herewith, the text of each of which is substantially the same as that of this instrument, and that the execution of any one of such instruments shall have the same effect as the execution of this instrument by the same person would have, and it is understood that parties to

107

this agreement shall include not only those persons who shall sign this instrument but also all persons who shall sign any of said counterpart or concurrent instruments, and that this instrument and all of said counterpart or concurrent instruments shall constitute one agreement. It being contemplated that changes in ownership may occur between the date which this instrument bears and that date when it shall become effective, or that there may possibly be some misrecital of ownership herein contained, it is further understood that the execution hereof by the person who shall be the owner of any of said parcels of land at the time of such execution shall have the same effect as though such person had been the owner thereof on the date hereof and was so described herein, whether the recital of ownership herein contained be made to conform to the facts as to ownership at the time of execution, the recital in any of said instruments shall be made different from that contained in the others, that difference shall not prevent all of such instruments from being construed to be substantially similar to each other.

No restriction imposed hereby shall be abrogated or waived by any failure to enforce the provisions hereof, no matter how many violations or breaches may occur.

This agreement and the restrictions herein expressed may be abrogated at any time on or after January, 1948, by the written agreement of the owners of seventy-five per centum of the frontage owned by the parties who shall sign this agreement, as herein set forth, such abrogation to be effective from and after the date of delivery and recording of such written agreement. Provided, however, that

108

if the owner of any of said parcels or any part thereof shall be under disability, as for example, that of minority, or for any other reason shall not have the power to execute such abrogation agreement, as for example, when the title is held without such power, by testamentary trustee or other fiduciaries, the frontage so owned shall be treated as though the owners thereof had power to sign, and had signed such abrogation agreement, for the purpose of determining whether such abrogation agreement becomes effective or not under the provision of this paragraph.

The invalidity of any restriction hereby imposed, or of any provision hereof, or any part of any such restriction or provision shall not impair or effect in any manner the validity, enforceability or affect of the rest of this agreement.

Pronouns herein employed in the masculine gender shall be construed to include the feminine and neuter genders, and the word "party" or "persons " to include natural and artificial parties or persons.

The term 'negro' as used herein shall include every person having one-eighth part or more of negro blood, or having any appreciable mixture of negro blood, and every person who is what is commonly known as a 'Colored person'.

In any case where there is a recorded lease of any parcel of the property described herein for a term ending more than five years after any given date, the owner of the reversion and the owner of the leasehold estate together shall be deemed to be the owners of such parcel on such given date within the meaning of this contract, and whenever the sig-

109

nature of the owner of such parcel shall be required on such given date under the provisions, whatever interest any signer of this instrument owns in any of said property shall be bound by the provisions hereof. Leases under unrecorded leases on any given date and under leases for terms ending less than five years after such given date shall not be regarded as owners within meaning of this contract.

The undersigned spouses of owners of land herein described join herein for the purpose of signifying their assent hereto and of subjecting their rights of dower, if any, to the restrictions and provisions imposed hereby.

Time is of the essence of this contract and all the terms, conditions and provisions hereof.

The covenants, restrictions and agreements herein contained shall be binding on, and for the benefit of, and may be enforced by and against, each party hereto, his successors and assigns, and the heirs, executors, administrators and successors of them respectively.

In Witness Whereof, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first aforesaid "

5. That said Restrictive Agreement consisted of four (4) parts, namely: (a) Agreement with signatures of said owners thereto attached; (b) a list of properties covered by said Agreement, with legal descriptions and street numbers and frontages; (c) and (d) the notarial certificates of acknowledgments of the signers of said Agreement were filed for record simultaneously in the office of the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County and recorded in Book 25525 of Records as follows:

110

(a) The Restrictive Agreement with the signatures of the signers thereof on Pages 5 to 31, both inclusive, as Document No. 9914711.

(b) The list of properties signed up, according to street number, legal description and frontage on Pages 32 to 52, both inclusive, as Document No. 9914712.

(c) The notarial certificates of acknowledgements of the signers of said Agreement on Pages 53 to 116, both inclusive, as Document No. 9914713 and on Pages 117 to 188, both inclusive, as Document No. 9914714.

6. That said Restrictive Agreement was offered and received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 5; the notarial certificates of acknowledgments thereof as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 5A and 5B and said list of properties as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 5C.

7. The Court further finds that the defendants and each of them objected to the admissibility of said Restrictive Agreement without proof that it was signed by the requisite number of property owners comprising ninety-five per centum (95%) of the frontage thereof and the Court finds from the competent proof adduced upon this question that less than ninety-five per centum (95%) of the frontage is represented by the signatures to said Agreement; that the plaintiff offered no proof upon this subject, relying entirely upon their contention that the validity and enforceability of this Agreement had already been passed upon, adjudicated and determined by courts of competent jurisdiction and this Court finds same to be true and sustains the contention of the plaintiff and admitted in evidence said exhibits.

111

8. The Court further finds that by the recordation of said Restrictive Agreement as aforesaid the defendants, and each of them, had constructive notice of said Restrictive Agreement and the contents thereof.

9. The Court further finds that it is provided in said Restrictive Agreement, among other things, that the covenants, restrictions and agreements therein contained shall be considered as appurtenant to and running with the land and shall be binding upon and for the benefit of and might be enforced by and against each party thereto, his successors and assigns and heirs, executors, administrators and assigns until January 1,1948 and thereafter until abrogated by the written agreement of the owners of seventy-five per centum (75%) of the frontage owned by the parties signing said agreement.

10. The Court further finds that on, to-wit: the date of the execution of said Restrictive Agreement, and on the date of the recording thereof, one Eva Somerman was the owner of record of the following described real estate within the area covered by said Restrictive Agreement, to-wit:

Lot Twenty-seven (27) in Block Two (2) in Resubdivision of Blocks Eleven (11) and Twelve (12) in Resubdivision of the Washington Park Club Addition to Chicago, in the South half (Sit) of the South East quarter (SE-1/4) of Section Fifteen (15), Township Thirty-eight (38) North, Range Fourteen (14), East of the Third (3rd) Principal Meridian' commonly known as 6140 Rhodes Avenue, Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.

That said real estate was then and is now improved with a three-story and basement brick

112

apartment residence that said Eva Somerman, a white person, executed and acknowledged said agreement before the recordation thereof; that said Eva Somerman and her husband conveyed said premises to one Joseph G. Stoltz, also a white person, by quit-claim deed recorded May 31, 1933; that said Joseph G. Stoltz, by quit-claim deed recorded April 27,1933, conveyed said premises to the First National Bank of Englewood, a corporation; that the First National Bank of Englewood conveyed said premises by deed dated May 15, 1937 to the defendant Jay B. Crook, a white person; that the deed from said Bank to Crook was recorded on May 26, 1937 that on the evening of the same day, the defendants Carl A. Hansberry and Nannie L. Hansberry, his fife, moved into the first apartment of said 6140 Rhodes Avenue, Chicago, Illinois (hereinafter for brevity sometimes referred to as the Hansberry property) and were in possession of said premises at the time of the filing of the complaint herein; that on May 27, 1937 said Jay B. Crook and his wife conveyed said premises to defendants Carl A. Hansberry and Nannie L. Hansberry, his wife; that said Carl A. Hansberry and Nannie L. Hansberry are negroes; that the defendants William T. Mooney and Elizabeth Cotsones were white tenants occupying the second and third apartments of said 6140 Rhodes Avenue, Chicago; that up to the time the said Hansberrys moved into said premises, the same had never been occupied or owned by negroes.

11. The Court further finds that the defendant James J. Burke for a number of years prior to March 1, 1937 was the President and later the Executive Manager of the Woodlawn Property

113

Owners' Association, the membership of which consisted of property owners interested in the enforcement of the said Restrictive Agreement; that said James J. Burke having some misunderstanding with the said Association, resigned about Starch 1, 1937 from said Woodlawn Property Owners' Association and severed his connection therewith, but before resigning threatened to put negroes in every block in the area covered by said Restrictive Agreement, which area was commonly known and designated as the Washington Park Subdivision.

12. The Court further finds that said Jay B. Crook was not a bona-fide purchaser of said premises at No. 6140 Rhodes Avenue, but acting in conspiracy with said James Joseph Burke by misrepresentation, deceit and fraud prevailed upon certain officers of said First National Bank of Englewood to sell said premises to said Crook and to execute said deed under their belief that the sale of said premises to him was bona-fide and that said premises would not be sold or conveyed to a negro that said Crook was in fact then and there acting for and on behalf of the defendant Carl A. Hansberry, a negro, to acquire said premises for said Hansberry; that the said Jay B. Crook acting on behalf of said Carl A. Hansberry, applied to the said Supreme Liberty Life Insurance Company, a corporation, having its principal office in Chicago, for a loan of Forty-four Hundred Dollars ($4400.00) on said No. 6140 Rhodes Avenue property; that said loan was approved by the executive officers of said Supreme Liberty Life Insurance Company and thereupon as security for said loan a trust deed was executed by the defendants Jay B. Crook and Hallie C. Crook, his wife, to the Chi-

114

cago Title & Trust Company, as trustee, to secure a principal note executed by said Jay B. Crook and his wife for Forty-four Hundred Dollars ($1400.00) payable to the order of "Bearer." All the foregoing acts by said parties were a part and parcel of the fraudulent scheme and conspiracy inaugurated by James Joseph Burke that said restricted area would be no longer free of negro inhabitants.

13. The Court further finds that the plaintiff, Anna M. Lee, and her deceased husband, High S. Lee, were at the time of the recording of said Restrictive Agreement, the owners, as joint tenants, of the two-story and basement two-apartment brick building commonly known as No. 6148 Rhodes Avenue, Chicago, Illinois; that said plaintiff Anna M. Lee and High S. Lee, her husband, signed, executed and acknowledged said Restrictive Agreement and since then have not permitted their said premises to be occupied by negroes that since the death of said High S. Lee, the said Anna M. Lee, a widow, is now the sole owner of said No. 6148 Rhodes Avenue that said Anna M. Lee occupies one apartment and a white tenant the other apartment; that said premises are her homestead and are located ninety (90) feet south of the Hansberry property, on the same side of the street and in the same block; that said Anna M. Lee is desirous that said Restrictive Agreement be enforced against negro occupancy or ownership.

14. That the plaintiffs, Edward I. Govanus and Esther Govanus, his wife, are now and ever since said Restrictive Agreement was recorded have been the owners of the three-story and basement three-apartment brick building and premises commonly known as No. 6142 Rhodes Avenue, Chicago,

115

Illinois, immediately south of and adjoining the Hansberry property; that said Edward L. Govanus and Esther Govanus are white persons; that they signed, executed and acknowledged said Restrictive Agreement that they occupy the first apartment of their said premises with their family as their homestead and lease the second and third apartments to tenants; that they have never permitted their said premises to be occupied by negroes, and are desirous that said Restrictive Agreement be enforced against negro occupancy and ownership.

15. That Kathryn Luttrell, a white person, acquired title to the premises commonly known as No. 6136 Rhodes Avenue, Chicago, from one Patrick T. Burke, a white person, who was one of the signers of said Restrictive Agreement that said premises are improved with a three-story and basement three-apartment brick building and occupied exclusively by white persons; that said premises have never been occupied by negroes, that the said premises are immediately north of and adjoining the Hansberry property at No. 6140 Rhodes Avenue; that when said Hansberry took possession of

his property, said Kathryn Luttrell had one vacant apartment which she had leased to a white tenant from June 1, 1937; that when said Hansberry took possession of his building and because thereof this said plaintiff's tenant refused to move into said vacant apartment and that said apartment has been vacant ever since; that said Kathryn Luttrell is desirous that said Restrictive Agreement be enforced.

16. That the plaintiff, Louise G. Anderson, a widow, and Lyman M. Anderson, her son, are white persons and are the owners of the premises com-

116

monly known as No. 6117 and 6119 Eberhart Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, improved with a three-story and basement six-apartment brick building that said premises are located in the same square block with said No. 6140 Rhodes Avenue; that said Eberhart Avenue is one block west of Rhodes Avenue, and that the rear of said Anderson premises are located about two hundred (200) feet north of the Hansberry property and that plaintiff Louise G. Anderson and her deceased husband, as joint tenants, both signed and acknowledged said Restrictive Agreement that their said premises have never been occupied or owned by negroes that upon the death of said husband of the plaintiff Louise G. Anderson, said Louise G. Anderson and her son, Lyman M. Anderson, became the owners of said premises and are both desirous that said Restrictive Agreement be enforced against negro occupancy or ownership.

17. The defendant Israel Katz was at the time of the filing of the Complaint herein the owner of premises known and described as follows, to-wit:

Lot Forty-five (45) in Block One (1) in John J. Mitchell's South Park Subdivision of Blocks Nine (9), Ten (10) and Eleven (11) in Maher's Subdivision of the Southeast quarter (SE-1/4) of Section Fifteen (15), Township Thirty-eight (38) North, Range Fourteen (14), East of the Third (3rd) Principal Meridian, commonly known as 6018 Vernon Avenue, Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.

That said defendant Israel Katz is a white person and was one of the signers of said Restrictive Agreement before the recordation thereof and that said Katz's premises are within the area covered by said Restrictive Agreement.

117

18.
That the defendant James Joseph Burke admits in his answer that in the year 1928 he purchased, through his wife, Olive Ida Burke, the premises commonly described as No. 6039 Vernon Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, and the Court finds that said James Joseph Burke was, at the time of the filing of the Complaint herein, the real beneficial owner of said premises at No. 6039 Vernon Avenue, although the record title thereto was then in the name of Olive Ida Burke; that said James Joseph Burke and Olive Ida Burke, his wife, are white persons and that their said premises are located within the area covered by said Restrictive Agreement; that said Olive Ida Burke acquired title to said No. 6039 Vernon Avenue, by mesne conveyances from one Hannah Studdert, who was one of the signers of said Restrictive Agreement.

19. The Court further finds that said defendant Harry H. Pace, at the time of the filing of the Complaint herein, was occupying and in possession of the premises commonly known as No. 413 East 60th Street, Chicago, Cook County, Illinois in violation of said Restrictive Agreement; that an action was filed in the Superior Court to dispossess said Pace from said premises on May 12, 1937, for violating said agreement but since the filing of the Complaint herein the said Harry H. Pace acquired title to said premises and is now the record owner thereof that the legal description of said property is as follows:

Lot Seven (7) in Block One (1) in John J. Mitchell's South Park Subdivision of Blocks Nine (9), Ten (10) and Eleven (11) in Maher's Subdivision of the Southeast quarter (SE-1/4) of Section Fifteen (15), Township Thirty-eight

118

(38) North, Fourteen (14), East of the Third (3rd) Principal Meridian, in Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.

that said action is still pending that said Harry H. Pace is a negro; that at the time of the signing of said Restrictive Agreement and up to the 14th day of April, A. D. 1937, one Walter J. Harrower was the owner of record of said So. 413 East 60th Street that said Walter J. Harrower is a white person and one of the signers of said Restrictive Agreement; that said premises are located within the area covered by said Restrictive Agreement that said Harry H. Pace is a lawyer or and also the President of the defendant Supreme Liberty Life Insurance Company. All the facts and circumstances surrounding the procedure and plan whereby said Pace acquired title to said premises shows a continuation of the fraudulent scheme of James Joseph Burke and his co-conspirators to prosecute his wrongful purpose and threats to bring about the destruction of said Restrictive Agreement and cause negroes to occupy the said restricted area.

20. The court further finds that the defendants in their several answers urge and contend that the Restrictive Agreement was not executed by the owners of ninety-five per centum (95%) of the frontage as is prescribed by said Agreement as a prerequisite to its enforceability and because of that fact said Agreement is null and void. To this contention or issue the plaintiff pleaded estoppel by verdict of res adjudicata contending that the execution, delivery, performance, condition precedent, validity, force and effect of this same Agreement was all adjudicated in a representative action entitled Burke vs. Kleiman, appearing in Volume 277,

119

Illinois Appellate Reports, page 519. The Court finds that the same arch-conspirator James Joseph Burke was one of the prime instigators of said suit Burke vs. Kleiman and in this cause he represents that said cause of action, namely: Burke vs. Kleiman was a friendly, collusive and fraudulent suit, purely a dummy proceeding and that therefore it should not be considered as determinative of any of the issues involved in this case. This Court finds that the said James Joseph Burke and his associated conspirators come into this court with unclean hands and cannot by reason of their misconduct avail themselves of the argument or defense that Burke vs. Kleiman does not constitute res adjudicata. This Court therefore finds from the evidence, pleadings and exhibits offered in respect of the decree in the case of Burke vs. Kleiman, aforesaid, and the affirmances thereof: that the decree in Burke vs. Kleiman, as a matter of law, is res adjudicata of the execution, recordation, general validity and enforceability of the Restrictive Agreement involved herein.

21. The Court further finds that the said Restrictive Agreement was also sustained and held in full force and effect by the Superior Court of Cook County in a final decree entered on May 6, 1936 in the case entitled Howard C. Penoyer et al. vs. Sarah Cohn, General No. 34S-16816, involving the premises at No. 6049-6051 South Park Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, and in the case of George W. Cook et al. vs. Milton S. Yondorf, et al., Superior Court of Cook County, General No. 34S-1261, affecting the premises No. 6024-6030 South Park Avenue, Chicago, and a final decree entered in said cause on October 20, 1936, that said Restrictive Agreement

120

was in full force and effect but that same did not affect last named premises for the reason that the title acquired by the defendant Yondorf in that cause came through foreclosure of a trust deed on said premises which was of record prior to the said Restrictive Agreement; that said last named decree has not been appealed from or reversed, but is in full force and effect.

22. The Court therefore finds that the signers of said Restrictive Agreement, their heirs, grantees, assigns and privies to said agreement are a class of persons who have common rights and who need protection against the violation of said agreement; that the plaintiffs in this case are all members of said class; that the defendants Carl A. Hansberry, Nannie L. Hansberry, Jay B. Crook, Hallie C. Crook and Harry H. Pace, are all members of this same class as privies in estate, being remote grantees of persons who signed the Restrictive Agreement; that said Restrictive Agreement is a covenant running with the land; that the defendant Israel Katz is a member of said class and personally signed said Restrictive Agreement; that the defendant James Joseph Burke is a member of the class; that the defendant Olive Ida Burke was and is a member of the said class; and brought action entitled Burke vs. Kleiman not alone on her own behalf, but on behalf of each and every member of this class as the representative of each and all of them; that the decree in said cause of Olive Ida Burke vs. Isaac Kleiman, et al., was affirmed by the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, and that an Order of Affirmance was filed in the Superior Court and a writ of Assistance issued.

121

23.
The Court further finds that said cause of Burke vs. Kleiman was a class action, and that the questions of the execution, delivery, performance of conditions precedent, validity, force and effect of the identical Restrictive Agreement involved in this cause were in issue, and necessarily adjudicated and in that adjudication were upheld and decreed to exist; that said facts have been properly pleaded by the plaintiffs as res adjudicata as an estoppel by verdict through the Complaint as amended and by the Reply of the plaintiffs to the answers and amended answers of the several defendants and proved by the certified copies of the Bill of Complaint, the answers, the stipulation of facts and decree in said Superior Court ease of Burke vs. Kleiman, the Order of Affirmance thereof by the Appellate Court introduced in this cause.

24. The Court further finds that said defendant Israel Katz made threats to sell, lease or convey his property to negroes that said Israel Katz is one of the signers of said Restrictive Agreement and is bound thereby and it is therefore ordered that the temporary injection heretofore entered against said Israel Katz be and the same is made permanent.

25. The Court further finds that said Restrictive Agreement is not against public policy, is not violative of any Article of the Constitution of the United States or of the State of Illinois, is not unconstitutional, is not against the public welfare, or in restraint of trade, or in restraint of alienation, does not deprive the defendants of any of their civil rights guaranteed said defendants of any of their civil rights guaranteed said defendants or negroes as a class by the due process clauses

122

of the Federal or State Constitutions, and it is therefore ordered that the objections of the plaintiffs to the amended answers the several defendants in respect to the defenses described in this paragraph be and the same are now sustained.

26. The Court further finds that said Restrictive Agreement was at the time of the filing of the Complaint herein and is now in full force and effect and binding on the defendants Carl A. Hansberry, Nannie L. Hansberry, his wife, Jay B. Crook, Hallie C. Crook, his wife, James Joseph Burke, Harry H. Pace, Supreme Liberty Life Insurance Company and Israel Katz and each and all of them; that the said agreement is a covenant running with the land, and that said plaintiffs are entitled to enforce said Restrictive Agreement that the possession and ownership of said No. 6140 Rhodes Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, by the defendants Carl A. Hansberry and Nannie L. Hansberry, is a violation of said Restrictive Agreement; that said plaintiffs have not an adequate, full and complete remedy at law and that the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury to their respective properties unless said Restrictive Agreement be enforced including the enforcement thereof by the lawful processes of this Court.

27. The Court further finds that said plaintiffs are not and have not been guilty of [aches or negligence that the signers of said Restrictive Agreement have been diligent in enforcing said agreement and that the violation of said agreement by the defendants Carl A. Hansberry and Nannie L. Hansberry particularly affects the property rights of the respective plaintiffs and each of them,

123

for the reason that said violation is proximate to the premises of the plaintiffs.

28. It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed that the temporary injunction issued by this Court on July 8, 1937 be and the same is declared permanent against each and every one of said defendants, Carl A. Hansberry, Nannie L. Hansberry, Jay B. Crook, Hallie C. Crook, James Joseph Burke, Harry H. Pace, Supreme Liberty Life Insurance Company, Israel Katz and each of them and against the agents, servants, attorneys and solicitors of said defendants.

29. And it is further ordered, adjudged and decreed by this Court that said defendants, Carl A. Hansberry and Nannie L. Hansberry, convey all their right, title and interest in the said premises and described as:

Lot Twenty-seven (27) in Block Two (2) in Resubdivision of Blocks Eleven (11) and Twelve (12) in Resubdivision of the Washington Park Club Addition to Chicago, in the South half (S-1/2) of the Southeast quarter (SE-1/4) of Section Fifteen (15), Township thirty-eight (38) North, Range Fourteen (14), East of the Third (3rd) Principal Meridian, commonly known as 6140 Rhodes Avenue, Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.

within thirty (30) days to a person who is not a negro, within the terms of, and subject to said Restrictive Agreement, and on failure so to do that Isadore Brown, one of the Masters in Chancery of this Court, convey all the right, title and interest of said Carl A. Hansberry and Nannie L. Hansberry, his wife, by a good and sufficient deed, subject to said Restrictive Agreement, to the defendant, Jay B. Crook, to whom the same was con-

124

veyed in good faith by said First National Bank of Englewood and that the said Jay B. Crook, Hallie C. Crook, his wife, said Carl A. Hansberry and Nannie L. Hansberry, his wife, and the grantee or grantees of any or either of them, their heirs, successors, administrators, executors, or assigns, and each of them, their agents, or attorneys, be and they are hereby permanently enjoined until January 1, 1948, and thereafter until said Restrictive Agreement shall be abrogated according to its terms, from selling, conveying, leasing or renting said premises at No. 6140 Rhodes Avenue, Chicago, or any part thereof to a negro or negroes, or permitting a negro or negroes to occupy said premises or any part thereof except such negro house-servants, janitors, or chauffeurs actually employed as such for service in and about said premises by the rightful owner or occupancy of said premises that said injunction issue without bond and that the bond filed by the plaintiffs for the issuance of the temporary injunction be cancelled, and of no further effect, and that upon the conveyance of said premises at No. 6140 Rhodes Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, to said Jay B. Crook, or some other person who is not a negro that the rents deposited with the Clerk of this Court or due from tenants since the temporary injunction was entered herein, and future rents be turned over to said Jay B. Crook, or to the person who is not a negro to whom said premises may be conveyed by said Carl A. Hansberry and Nannie L. Hansberry, his wife, and that the defendants pay the costs of this suit and that execution issue therefor as at common law.

It is further ordered that the original exhibits

125

introduced in evidence may be withdrawn by the respective parties and photostatic or typewritten copies thereof filed in lieu thereof.

Enter: George W. Bristow, Judge.

 

This WWW page was created by Wendy Plotkin (wendy.plotkin@asu.edu) in 1998 and updated on 1 September 2003.