This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

On the 28th day of May 1900, D adopted a resolution that placed a quarantine because they discovered 9 Chinese dead from the plague. The board of supervisors passed an ordinance. The quarantine was placed only against the Chinese. P is Chinese, resides within the limits of said quarantined district, and is engaged in the business of conducting a grocery store. A great number of the patrons and customers of his reside at various places in the city and county of San Francisco outside the boundaries of said quarantined district, and are now, and ever since the 29th day of May, 1900, been, prevented and prohibited by Dss from visiting, patronizing, and dealing with P in his grocery store. P noticed something strange about the quarantine in that it only applied to apply to Chinese and the demarcation line reflected this by avoiding anyone else who owned property that was not Chinese. All stores, residences, and other buildings within the quarantined district as described in the resolution, occupied by persons of races other than Chinese, were not subjected to any of the restrictions or limitations. P alleged that there is not now, and never has been, any case of bubonic plague within the limits of said quarantined district, nor any germs or bacteria of bubonic plague, and that other diseases caused the illness and death of the persons claimed by defendants to have died of the bubonic plague within the 30 days next preceding the filing of this complaint. P alleged that he has never had or contracted the bubonic plague; that he has never been at any time exposed to the danger of contracting it, and has never been in any locality where said bubonic plague, or any germs or bacteria thereof, has or have existed. P alleged that Ds are being deprived of the equal protection of the laws, and of their rights and liberties under the constitution of the United States, and the laws and treaties passed and adopted in pursuance thereof. The prayer of the bill is that an injunction be granted, enjoining and restraining Ds from interfering with personal rights and privileges. The court issued an order to Ds to show cause why an injunction should not be issued to restrain them from committing the acts and carrying into execution the threats set forth in the bill of complaint. Ds allege that the restrictions against P were duly enacted and that the plague was a real problem in the quarantined area. P answered that the equities of the bill are that P is being unlawfully restrained of his liberty, and illegally deprived of the use of his property.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.