Black v. Lenderman

• Decision Date: 15 January 1923
• Docket Number: 94
• Citation: 246 S.W. 876,156 Ark. 476
• Parties: BLACK v. LENDERMAN
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

246 S.W. 876

156 Ark. 476

BLACK v. LENDERMAN

No. 94

Supreme Court of Arkansas

January 15, 1923

Appeal from Montgomery Chancery Court; J. P. Henderson, Chancellor affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

R G. Davies, for appellant.

MCCULLOCH C. J. HART, J., dissents on the ground that the former decision was erroneous.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, C. J.

Appellants, Black and his children of school age within the statutes of the State, instituted this action in the chancery court of Montgomery County against the directors of the school district in which they resided, to restrain the directors from denying them the privilege of attending the only school maintained in the district, being a school maintained for white children. The children were denied the privilege of attending the school on the ground that they are not of the white or Caucasian race; that they have a trace of negro blood, and are "colored children" within the meaning of the statute. Appellants claim, and allege in their complaint, that the children are of the white race, with a trace of Cherokee Indian blood.

Appellees put in a plea of res judicata on the ground that, in an action instituted by appellants in the circuit court of Montgomery County against the school district of which appellees are directors, to compel the district, by mandamus, to receive the children into the school, the circuit court rendered a decision against them and that the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed by this court. State v. School District No. 16, 154 Ark. 176, 242 S.W. 545. The chancery court sustained the plea, and rendered a decree dismissing the complaint, from which decree an appeal has been prosecuted to this court.

Appellants now present a motion for a temporary injunction, and it is submitted upon the motion and briefs upon the merits of the case.

Since the only issue in the case necessarily arises on the motion for a temporary injunction, it is deemed expedient to decide it now in passing on the motion.

We are of the opinion that the only issue in the case was decided adversely to appellants in the mandamus case, and that the former adjudication is a bar to any further litigation on that issue. The parties are the same in each case, except that in the former case the suit was instituted against the district itself in the name of the State on the relation of appellants, whereas the present case was instituted by appellants in their own name...