Hoxie School District No. 46 v. Brewer

Citation135 F. Supp. 296
PartiesHOXIE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 46 of LAWRENCE COUNTY, ARKANSAS, a body corporate under the laws of the State of Arkansas; L. R. Howell, L. L. Cochran, Howard Vance, Guy Floyd, and Leo Robert, individually and as Directors of Hoxie School District No. 46 of Lawrence County, Arkansas; and K. E. Vance, Plaintiffs, v. Herbert BREWER, Amis Guthridge, White America, Inc., a corporation organized and operating under the laws of the State of Arkansas; "Citizens Committee Representing Segregation in the Hoxie Schools", an unincorporated association; James D. Johnson, Curt Copeland, and "White Citizens Council of Arkansas", an unincorporated association, Defendants.
Decision Date31 October 1955
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas

James Sloan, III, Walnut Ridge, Ark., Edwin E. Dunaway, Little Rock, Ark., Penix & Penix, Jonesboro, Ark., for plaintiffs.

M. V. Moody, W. H. Gregory, Little Rock, Ark., for defendants.

TRIMBLE, Chief Judge.

The complaint in this case was filed on October 13, 1955. It was verified by the plaintiffs, who are school directors, and the superintendent of the school, of the plaintiff district. There were attached to the complaint the affidavits of Jewel Thorn, Raymond Saunches and K. E. Vance.

A temporary restraining order was issued on October 14, to expire at 10:00 a. m. on October 21, 1955, and it was ordered that the motion for preliminary injunction be set for hearing on October 20, 1955.

On October 20, 1955, defendant Amis Guthridge filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Upon the filing of this motion the court continued in effect the temporary restraining order until October 31, 1955, and set that date as the date for a hearing on the motion as well as on the application for preliminary injunction.

Exhaustive briefs have been filed by counsel for plaintiff and defendant, and the court, after a careful study of the briefs and the authorities cited, has reached a decision as to whether or not the motion should be sustained.

The motion raises two questions: (1) whether the court has jurisdiction of the parties and the controversy, and (2) whether the complaint states a cause of action for injunction and declaratory judgment.

In considering both the question of jurisdiction and the sufficiency of the allegations of the complaint to state a cause of action the court is required to accept as true all of the allegations of the complaint.

I.

The jurisdiction of the court is invoked pursuant to Title 28, United States Code Annotated, Section 1331, it being alleged that the action arises under the United States Constitution, Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3, Title 4, United States Code, Section 101; the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States; Title 28, United States Code Annotated, Section 1343; Title 42, United States Code Annotated, Sections 1983, 1985(2) and 1988; and Title 18, United States Code Annotated, Sections 241 and 242.

Section 1331 of Title 28, United States Code Annotated, reads as follows:

"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions wherein the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States."

It would unduly extend this Memorandum to recite the allegations of the complaint which call into question the construction of the various provisions of the Acts of Congress and of the Constitution of the United States and which assert the violation of provisions of the Constitution and the laws of Congress.

Since the allegations of the complaint must be taken as true, it is obvious that this court does have jurisdiction of the cause of action, if one is stated in the complaint. Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939; Mosher v. City of Phoenix, 287 U.S. 29, 53 S.Ct. 67, 77 L.Ed. 148; The Fair v. Kohler Die & Specialty Co., 228 U.S. 22, 33 S.Ct. 410, 57 L.Ed. 716.

The court, therefore, holds that it does have jurisdiction.

II.

The complaint, though not in violation of the rule against prolixity, is necessarily somewhat lengthy. For the purpose of this memorandum it may be stated, in brief, that the complaint alleges that the plaintiff Board of Directors, as the governing body of Hoxie School District No. 46, in the performance of their duties as directors, made a determination that the District is ready to integrate the white and Negro school children of that District; that said plaintiffs have undertaken to put into effect this administrative finding and holding by opening the doors of the school to the children of both the white and Negro races; that the defendants by various acts have conspired together to obstruct the Board of Directors from carrying out its said finding and holding.

Further simplifying the issue, it may be said that the complaint in effect alleges that said Board of Directors have undertaken and are undertaking to conduct a school wherein no discrimination is made between the races in conformity to recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, without awaiting the repeal of the segregation statutes of the State of Arkansas; that the defendants by threats and efforts to intimidate the Board of Directors, by the circulation of propaganda literature and by inflammatory speeches, as well as by trespassing upon school property under jurisdiction of the plaintiffs, and by threatening to set up a picket line to obstruct ingress of children to the school, and by attempting to persuade childrens' parents to withdraw them from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Brewer v. Hoxie School District No. 46, 15510.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 25 Octubre 1956
    ...hearing was had on a motion by defendants to dismiss. Judge Trimble denied the motion and accompanied the ruling with written opinion, 135 F.Supp. 296. Thereafter, issues having been joined, plenary trial was had in the district court on the merits before Judge Reeves assigned and judgment ......
  • Sherck v. Hagan, Civ. No. 3095.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. District of South Dakota
    • 10 Noviembre 1955
    ......S. HAGAN, Defendant. Civ. No. 3095. United States District Court D. North Dakota, Southwestern Division. November 10, ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT