Holmes v. City of Atlanta

• Citation: 223 F.2d 93
• Decision Date: 17 June 1955
• Docket Number: No. 15267.,15267.
• Parties: Alfred HOLMES, Oliver W. Holmes and Dr. H. M. Holmes, v. CITY OF ATLANTA et al.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

223 F.2d 93 (1955)

Alfred HOLMES, Oliver W. Holmes and Dr. H. M. Holmes, v. CITY OF ATLANTA et al.

No. 15267.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June 17, 1955.

E. E. Moore, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., Jack Greenberg, Robert L. Carter, Thurgood Marshall, New York City, R. E. Thomas, Jr., S. S. Robinson, Atlanta, Ga., for appellants.

J. C. Murphy, J. C. Savage, Martin McFarland, J. M. B. Bloodworth, Henry L. Bowden, Newell Edenfield, Atlanta, Ga., for appellees.

Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, HOLMES, Circuit Judge, and DAWKINS, District Judge.

HUTCHESON, Chief Judge.

Alleging that they and others similarly situated were discriminatorily¹ and in violation of their civil rights being denied access to, and the right and privilege of playing golf on, the Bobby Jones Golf Course and other municipal golf courses provided and maintained by the City of Atlanta, appellants brought this suit for a declaratory judgment, for damages, and for an injunction.

Plaintiffs having withdrawn their claim for damages, and defendants their demand for a jury, the district judge, finding the facts to be established substantially as alleged by plaintiffs and that they were entitled to the declaration² and injunction³ prayed for, entered judgment⁴ accordingly. D.C., 124 F.Supp. 290.

Appealing from the judgment, plaintiffs are here assigning two specifications of error:

"The trial court erred:

"1. In refusing to rule that appellees were required by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States to admit appellants and other Negroes similarly situated to public golf facilities subject only to the same rules, regulations and conditions applicable to all other persons.

"2. In failing to enjoin appellees from refusing to admit appellants and other Negroes similarly situated, without more, to the Bobby Jones Golf Course and all other public golf course facilities subject only to the same rules, regulations and conditions applicable to all other persons."

Of the clear opinion, that the judgment in terms accorded plaintiffs all the relief that they asked for, that the specifications, in complaining as error that the court refused and failed to adjudge and order, in accordance with their prayers, are in contradiction of the precise terms of the judgment and are, therefore, without substance, we affirm the judgment, with directions to the district judge: (1) to retain jurisdiction of this cause to take such proceedings and enter such orders at the foot of the decree consistent with the decree as are necessary and proper to fully and promptly effectuate and carry it out; and (2) as promptly as possible, upon the coming down of our mandate, to initiate proceedings to see that his judgment and decree is promptly, in letter and in spirit, made effective.

Judgment Affirmed with directions, and with costs against appellants.

1 Alleging the existence of an ordinance of the City of Atlanta, Section 68-126, Code of the City of Atlanta, making it unlawful for colored people to frequent parks owned and maintained by the City for use of white people and unlawful for white people to frequent or use any park maintained by the City for the use and benefit of colored persons, the complaint further alleged that defendants "have enforced, executed and pursued, and are enforcing, executing and pursuing a policy, custom, usage and practice of denying to plaintiffs, and other Negro citizens similarly situated, admission to and the use of the Bobby Jones Golf Course, or any of the other five or more golf courses owned, maintained and operated by the City of Atlanta, Georgia, solely because of their race or color; that said policy, practice,...