Hill v. Miller

64 Cal.2d 757 (1966) CLIFTON HILL, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

CRAWFORD MILLER, Defendant and Respondent.

Supreme Court of California.

June 8, 1966. Colley & McGhee, Nathaniel S. Colley, Milton L. McGhee, Stanley Malone and Clarence B. Canson for Plaintiff and Appellant. [758]

John F. Duff, Richard G. Logan, Cyril A. Coyle, James S. DeMartini, Thomas Arata, William J. Bush, Peter J. Donnici, James T. McDonald, Richard B. Morris, Richard A. Bancroft, Jack Greenberg, Joseph B. Robison, Sol Rabkin, Robert M. O'Neil, Duane B. Beeson, Seymour Farber, Robert H. Laws, Jr., Howard Nemerovski, John G. Clancy, Ephraim Margolin, George T. Altman and Ray R. McCombs as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

Harry A. Ackley, Robert J. Cook and John M. Beede for Defendant and Respondent.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, William French Smith, Samuel O. Pruitt, Jr., and Charles S. Battles, Jr., as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

PEEK, J.

Plaintiff tenant appeals from a judgment for defendant landlord entered upon the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend in an action for an injunction to restrain defendant from evicting plaintiff, a Negro, solely because of his race.

[1] It appears from the complaint and is deemed admitted by the demurrer that plaintiff occupies, as a tenant, residential property owned by defendant; that defendant caused to be served upon plaintiff a notice to quit possession and terminate the tenancy; that the notice was given only for the reason that defendant plans to exclude Negroes from the rental of residential real property owned by defendant; that defendant intends to follow the notice with an action for unlawful detainer in the appropriate municipal court; that he asserts he is entitled to discriminate in the rental of his property in reliance on article I, section 26, of the California Constitution; [fn. 1] that plaintiff has a right not to be subjected to such discrimination by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, and that he has no adequate remedy at law by which to preserve his right.