Morrison v. Davis Transcript of Record

    TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD

UNITED STATES

C O U R T  OF A P P E A L S

deLESSEPS S. MORRISON, Individually and as 
Mayor of the City of New Orleans, 

PROVOSTY A. DAYRIES, Individually and as 
Superintendent of Police of the City of New Orleans, and 

NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SERVICE INC., ^r^orporatiei^
Appellants,

ABRAHAM L. DAVIS, JR., and WILLIAM R. ADAMS,
Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 
Eastern District of Louisiana

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No.

versus

(Original Record Received)





I N D E X
Page

Caption ..........................................................................  1

Complaint .......................................................................  2

Answer of N. O. Phblie Service Inc..................................  15

Answer of George S. Dinwiddie.................    18

Motion of Certain Defendants to Dismiss Under
Rule 12B .................................................................  21

Motion of Plaintiffs for Judgment on the Pleadings ... 23

Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings .................................................................  24

Hearing on Motions and Order Dismissing Complaint 
as to Councilmen of City of New Orleans and 
Paul L. Ristrop, etc. & Further Order 
Continuing Hearing on Other Motions .................. 26

Answer of Mayor Morrison and Provosty A. Dayries . . 27

Motion and Order Dismissing Complaint as to
George S. Dinwiddie ..............................................  29

Motion of Plaintiffs’ for Summary Judgment ............  30

Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Support of his
Motion for Summary Judgment ............................  31



INDEX — (Continued)
Page

Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Support of his
Motion for Summary Judgment ..........................  34

Defendants Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for
Summary Judgment ................................................ 38

Defendants’ Affidavit in Support of Opposition to
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment ............................  39

Hearing on Motion of Plaintiff for Summary
Judgment and Motion of City of New Orleans to 
Dismiss - Argument - Order Granting Declaratory 
Judgment Along with Permanent Injunction......... 40

Judgment ....................................................................... 42

Motion for a Rehearing and for a New T ria l................ 44

Amended Judgment ....................................................... 48

Hearing on Motion for New Trial and Order Denying
Same ....................................................................... 50

Notice of Appeal..............................................................  51

Designation of Record on Appeal .................................. 53

II

Clerk’s Certificate 54



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

NEW ORLEANS DIVISION

No. 6418 
Civil Action

ABRAHAM L. DAVIS, JR., and 
WILLIAM R. ADAMS

versus

deLESSEPS S. MORRISON, ETC., ET AL.

APPEARANCES:
A. P. Tureaud, Esq.,
Earl J. Amedee, Esq.,
Israel M. Augustine, Jr., Esq.,
Louis Berry, Esq.,
Robert F. Collins, Esq.,
Alvin Jones, Esq.,
Revius O. Ortique, Jr., Esq.,
A. M. Trudeau, Jr.,

Attorneys for Plaintiffs - Appellees

Alvin J. Liska, City Attorney 
Joseph H. Hurndon, Asst. City Attorney 
Jack P. F. Gremillion, Attorney Gen. State of La. 
George M. Ponder, 1st Asst. Attorney Gen. State of La. 
William P. Schuler, Asst. Attorney Gen. State of La. 
Gibbons Burke, Esq., Attorney for 

New Orleans Public Service, Inc.
Arthur J. Waechter, Esq., Attorney for 

New Orleans Public Service, Inc.



2

APPEAL from the District Court of the United States 
for the Eastern District of Louisiana, to the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, returnable within 
forty (40) days from the 21st day of June, 1957, at the City 
of New Orleans, Louisiana.

Extension of time granted by the Honorable United 
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, 
bringing the return day up to and including September 28, 
1957.

COMPLAINT

(Number and Title Omitted)

Filed: February 1, 1957

1.

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under Title 28, 
United States Code, Section 1331, this being a civil action 
arising under the Constitution and laws of the United 
States, to wit, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitu­
tion of the United States, Section 1, and Title 42, United 
States Code, Section 1981, wherein the matter in contro­
versy exceeds the sum of Three Thousand and no/100 
Dollars ($3,000,00), exclusive of interest and costs.

2.

The jurisdiction of this Court is also invoked under



3

Title 28, United States Code, Section 1343(3). This action 
is authorized by Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983, 
to be commenced by any citizen of the United States or 
other person within the jurisdiction thereof, to redress the 
deprivation under color of a state law, statute, ordinance, 
regulation, custom or usage of rights, privileges and im­
munities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United 
States, to wit, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitu­
tion of the United States, Section 1, and Title 42, United 
States Code, Section 1981, providing for the equal rights 
of citizens and all other persons within the jurisdiction of 
the United States.

3.

The jurisdiction of this Court is also invoked under Title 
28, United States Code, Section 2281. This is an action 
for an interlocutory and permanent injunction, restraining, 
upon the grounds of their unconstitutionality under the due 
process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution of 
the United States, the enforcement of LSA-R.S. 45:194-196 
inclusive, and LSA-R.S. 45:731-733 inclusive, statutes of 
the State of Louisiana as more fully appear hereinafter.

4.

This is a proceeding for a declaratory judgment under 
Title 28, United States Code, Sections 2201 and 2202, to 
declare the rights and legal relations of the parties in the 
matter in controversy, to wit:

Whether the enforcement, execution or opera­
tion of LSA-R.S. 45:194, 45:195, 45:196, 45:731,



4

45:732 and 45:733, which require the segregation of 
plaintiffs and all other Negro citizens solely be­
cause of race and color on buses, street cars or street 
railways and trolley buses operating within the 
City of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana, 
deny them their rights, privileges and immunities 
as citizens of the United States, due process of 
law and equal protection of the laws as 
secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States, and rights 
and privileges secured to them by Title 42, 
United States Code, Section 1981 and 1983, and 
whether the enforcement, execution and operation 
of the said statutes are for the aforesaid reasons 
unconstitutional and void?

5.

Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rule 23(a)(3) 
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for themselves and 
on behalf of all other Negro citizens similarly situated 
whose numbers make it impracticable to bring them before 
this Court; they seek common relief based upon common 
questions of law and fact.

6.

Plaintiffs are Negroes and citizens of the United States 
and the State of Louisiana. Plaintiffs, as residents of the 
City of New Orleans, Orleans Parish, State of Louisiana, 
use the public transportation system operated by the New 
Orleans Public Service, Inc., in the City of New Orleans and 
intend to use the same in the future.



5

7.

(a) Defendant, DeLesseps S. Morrison, is a resident 
of the City of New Orleans, Orleans Parish, State of 
Louisiana, and is Mayor of the City of New Orleans. Paul 
V. Burke, Fred J. Cassibry, Glenn P. Classen, Walter M. 
Duffourc, James E. Fitzmorris, Jr., and Victor H. Schiro 
are residents of the City of New Orleans, Parish of Orleans, 
State of Louisiana, and are all members of the City Council 
of the City of New Orleans. This action is brought against 
the defendants named above as individuals and in their 
official capacities in which they are vested with the power 
to regulate the defendant, the New Orleans Public Service, 
Inc., pursuant to Section 4-206 (c) and Section 2-101, Home 
Rule Charter of the City of New Orleans.

(b) The defendant, Paul L. Ristroph, is a resident of 
the City of New Orleans, Parish of Orleans, State of Lou­
isiana and is Director of Utilities, Department of Utilities 
of the City of New Orleans. This action is brought against 
the above-named defendant individually and in his official 
capacity in which he is vested with the power to supervise 
and investigate the operations of public utilities in the City 
of New Orleans, pursuant to Section 4-1601, Home Rule 
Charter of the City of New Orleans.

(c) The defendant, Provosty A. Dayries, is a resident 
of the City of New Orleans, Parish of Orleans, State of 
Louisiana, and is Superintendent of Police of the City of 
New Orleans. This action is brought against the above- 
named defendant, individually and in his official capacity, 
in which he is vested with the power to enforce the ordin­
ance of the City and all laws, and prevent their violation,



6

pursuant to Section 4-501, Home Rule Charter of the City 
of New Orleans.

(d) The defendant, George S. Dinwiddie, is a resident 
of the City of New Orleans, Parish of Orleans, State of 
Louisiana, and is the President of the New Orleans Public 
Service, Inc.

(e) The defendant, the New Orleans Public Service, 
Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the 
laws of the State of Louisiana with its principal place of 
business in the City of New Orleans and is engaged in 
operating within the said city, buses, street cars or street 
railways and trolley buses for the transportation of passen­
gers for hire pursuant to a franchise issued by the said 
City of New Orleans.

(f) Defendants, DeLesseps S. Morrison, Paul V. Burke, 
Fred J. Cassibry, Glenn P. Classen, Walter M. Duffourc, 
James E. Fitzmorris, Jr., Victor H. Schiro, Paul F. Ristroph 
and Provosty A. Dayries, seek to enforce the said statutes 
and to compel plaintiffs and all other Negro citizens of the 
City of New Orleans to comply with the provisions of the 
aforesaid unconstitutional statutes and pursuant to the 
aforesaid statutes and the orders of said defendants, the 
plaintiffs, and all other Negro citizens who fail to observe 
and comply with these statutes, are subject to arrest, fine 
and imprisonment.

(g) Defendants, George S. Dinwiddie, President of the 
New Orleans Public, Inc., and the New Orleans Public 
Service, Inc., acting under color of and in purported com­
pliance with the statutes hereinabove set out, have operated



7

and now operate their buses, street cars or street railways 
and trolley buses on the basis of racial segregation in vio­
lation of rights guaranteed to the plaintiffs and other Negro 
citizens under the Constitution and laws of the United 
States, to wit: the privileges and immunities of citizens of the 
United States, due process of law and the equal protection of 
the law secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Cons­
titution of the United States and rights and privileges se­
cured by Title 42, United States Code, Section 1981 and 
1983.

(h) Defendant, New Orleans Public Service, Inc., act­
ing under color of law and in purported compliance with 
the statutes hereinabove set out, maintain on its buses, 
street cars or street railways and trolley buses a sign for 
the purpose of racial segregation which sign reads “For 
Colored Patrons Only” and behind which sign plaintiffs and 
all other Negro citizens of the City of New Orleans are com­
pelled to seat themselves, or be so assigned to sit, by agents, 
servants, or employees of defendant, New Orleans Public 
Service, Inc., in compliance with the unconstitutional statu­
tes, LSA-R.S. 45:194-196, inclusive, and LSA-R.S. 45:731- 
733, inclusive.

8.

LSA-R.S. 45:194-196, inclusive, and LSA-R.S. 45:731-733, 
inclusive, provide as follows:

“All persons carrying passengers for hire in 
their buses, carriages or vehicles in this state shall 
provide equal but separate accommodations for 
the white and colored races by designating sepa­
rate seats or compartments so as to secure sepa­
rate accommodations for the white and colored



8

races; no person shall be permitted to occupy seats 
or compartments other than the ones so desig­
nated.” (R.S. 45:194).

“The person in charge of busses, carriages or ve­
hicles mentioned in R.S. 45:194 shall assign each 
passenger to a seat or compartment used for the 
race to which such passenger belongs.

“Any passenger insisting upon going into a seat 
or compartment to which by race he does not be­
long, shall be fined twenty-five dollars or impris­
oned for not more than thirty days.

“If any passenger refuses to occupy the seat or 
compartment to which he is assigned by the person 
in charge of such bus, carriage or vehicle, the per­
son in charge may refuse to carry the passenger on 
his car or cars, and for such refusal neither he nor 
the person he represents shall be held for damages 
in this state.

“Any person in charge of a bus, carriage or ve­
hicle insisting on assigning a person to a seat or 
compartment other than the one set aside for the 
race to which the passenger belongs, shall be fined 
twenty-five dollars or imprisoned for not more 
than thirty days.” (LSA-R.S. 45:195).

All officers and directors of persons carrying 
passengers for hire over the public highways of the 
state, refusing or neglecting to comply with the pro­
visions of R.S. 45:194 through 45:195 shall be



9

fined not less than fifty dollars, nor more than three 
hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not less than 
ten days nor more than sixty days, or both.”

“All street railway companies carrying passen­
gers in cars in this state shall provide equal but 
separate accommodations for the white and colored 
races by providing two or more cars or by dividing 
the cars by wodden or wire screen partitions so as 
to secure separate accommodations for the white 
and colored races. No person shall be permitted 
to occupy seats in cars or compartments other than 
the ones assigned to them on account of the race to 
which they belong.”
(LSA-R.S. 45:731).

“The officers of street railway cars shall assign 
each passenger to the car or compartment used for 
the race to which the passenger belongs.

“Any passenger insisting upon going into a car 
or compartment to which by race he does not be­
long shall be fined twenty-five dollars, or imprison­
ed for not more than thirty days, and any officer 
of any street railway insisting on assigning a pass­
enger to a car or compartment other than the one 
set aside for the race to which the passenger be­
longs, shall be fined twenty-five dollars, or im­
prisoned for not more than thirty days.

“If any passenger refuse to occupy the car or 
compartment to which he is assigned by the officer 
of such street railway, the officer may refuse to



10

carry such passenger on his car, and for such re­
fusal neither he nor the street railway company 
which he represents shall be liable for damages.” 
(LSA-R.S. 45:732).

“All officers and directors of street railway 
companies refusing to comply with R,S. 45:731 and 
45:732 shall be fined not less than one hundred dol­
lars, or imprisoned for not less than sixty days nor 
more than six months. Any conductor or other em­
ployee of a street railway car having charge of 
same, who refuses to carry out the provisions of 
R.S. 45:731 and 45:732 shall be fined not less than 
twenty-five dollars, or imprisoned for not less 
than ten days nor more than thirty days for each of­
fense. All street railway corporations carrying 
passengers in this state shall keep this law posted 
in a conspicuous place in each car and at their 
transfer stations.

“Nothing in R.S. 45:731 and 45:732 shall apply to 
nurses attending children of the other race.” 
LSA-R.S. 45:733.)

9.

In a conference held on January 9, 1957, with defend­
ants, George S. Dinwiddie, President of the New Orleans 
Public Service, Inc., and the New Orleans Public Service, 
Inc., plaintiffs requested the said defendants to discontinue 
the operation of their buses, street cars or street railways 
and trolley buses on the basis of racial segregation. De-



11

fendant, the New Orleans Public Service, Inc., gave the 
following answer in response to the said request, to wit:

“Our purpose is to provide safe, efficient, econ­
omical and courteous transit service for all the 
citizens in New Orleans. The United States Su­
preme Court decision was rendered in a case aris­
ing in Montgomery, Alabama. Public Service is 
chartered under the laws of the State of Louisiana.
The applicable laws of Louisiana have not been 
reviewed by the United States Supreme Court 
and must, therefore, be complied with. In our 
judgment, Public Service can not presume to 
determine judicial and regulatory matters.

“In carrying out our purpose of providing safe, 
low-cost transit service, we are not at liberty to use 
our own discretion in all decisions about operations.
We must operate within the framework of appli­
cable State and local laws. Enforcement of the 
law is a responsibility of the State and local of­
ficials.

“Under these circumstances, the company is con­
tinuing its present operating practices.”

10.

Plaintiffs, and all other Negro citizens of the City of 
New Orleans, have been compelled to occupy segregated 
sections of the buses, street cars or street railways and 
trolley buses operated by defendant New Orleans Public 
Service, Inc., and have suffered great injury, inconvenience



12

and humiliation as a result of the denial to them of their 
constitutional rights to use said facilities on an unsegregated 
basis without fear or intimidation.

11.

Plaintiffs, and all other Negro citizens of the City of 
New Orleans, are threatened with irreparable injury by 
reason of the conditions herein complained of. They have 
no plain, adequate or complete remedy to redress these 
wrongs other than by this suit for an injunction. Any other 
remedy would be attended by such uncertainties and delays 
as to deny substantive relief and would involve a multipli­
city of suits and cause further irreparable injury, damage 
and inconvenience to plaintiffs and all other Negro citi­
zens of the City of New Orleans.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that:

(1) The Court convene a three-judge court as provided 
by Title 28, United States Code, Section 2284.

(2) The Court advance this complaint on the docket 
and order a speedy hearing thereof according to law and 
that upon such hearing the Court enter a temporary in­
junction to enjoin and restrain the defendants and each 
of them from enforcing LSA-R.S. 45:194, 45:195, 45:196, 
45:731, 45:732 and 45:733, of the State of Louisiana, and 
any and all customs, practices and usages pursuant to 
which plaintiffs and all other Negro citizens of the City 
of New Orleans are segregated in and on the buses, street 
cars or street railways and trolley buses of the New Or­
leans Public Service, Inc., on the ground that such statutes



13

are null and void and in violation of the Fourteenth Amend­
ment to the Constitution of the United States.

(3) The Court upon a final hearing of this cause will:

(a) Enter a final judgment and decree that will de­
clare and define the legal rights of the parties in relation 
to the subject matter of this controversy.

(b) Enter a final judgment and decree that will de­
clare that LSA-R.S. 45:194, 45:195, 45:196, 45:731, 45:732 and 
45:733 of the State of Louisiana are unconstitutional and 
therefore null and void in that they deny to the plaintiffs 
and all other Negro citizens of the City of New Orleans 
privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, 
due process of law and the equal protection of the laws 
secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States and the rights and privileges secured to 
them by Sections 1981 and 1983 of Title 42, United States 
Code.

(c) Enter a final judgment and decree enjoining the 
defendants, their agents, servants and employees from en­
forcing the aforesaid statutes on the ground that they are 
unconstitutional and therefore null and void as aforestated.

(4) The Court allow plaintiffs their cost and that plain­
tiffs have such other and further relief as may appear just 
and proper in the premises.



14

(Signed) A. P. TUREAUD 
A. P. TUREAUD 
1821 Orleans Avenue 
New Orleans 16, Louisiana

ATTORNEY FOR 
PETITIONERS

EARL J. AMEDEE 
ISRAEL M. AUGUSTINE, JR,
LOUIS BERRY 
ROBERT F. COLLINS 
ALVIN JONES 
REVIUS O. ORTIQUE, JR.
A. M. TRUDEAU, JR.

New Orleans, Louisiana 
OF COUNSEL

VERIFICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA)
PARISH OF ORLEANS )

ABRAHAM L. DAVIS, JR. and WILLIAM R. ADAMS, 
being first duly sworn, depose and say that they are the 
PETITIONERS in the above and foregoing complaint; that 
they have read the same and that all of the facts and allega­
tions contained therein are true and correct.

(Signed) ABRAHAM L, DAVIS, JR. 
Abraham L. Davis, Jr.



15

(Signed) WILLIAM R. ADAMS 
William R. Adams

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS 1st 
DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1957.

A. P. TUREAUD 
NOTARY PUBLIC

ANSWER OF N. O. PUBLIC SERVICE, INC. 

(Number and Title Omitted)

Filed: March 22, 1957

NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel comes 
New Orleans Public Service Inc., named defendant here­
in, and for answer to the complaint with respect avers:

1.

Defendant denies the allegations of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 
5, 10, and 11.

2.

Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 7, except 
it admits:

a.) that the defendants named in subparagraph (a) 
are residents of the City of New Orleans, State of Lou­



16

isiana and hold the respective offices described in said 
subparagraph and are vested with the power and au­
thority to regulate this defendant;

b. ) that the defendant named in subparagraph (b) 
is a resident of the City of New Orleans, State of Lou­
isiana, and holds the office described in said subpara­
graph and is vested with the power to supervise the 
operations of this defendant;

c. ) that the defendant named in subparagraph (c) 
is a resident of the City of New Orleans, is the Super­
intendent of Police of the City of New Orleans and 
is vested with the power and duty to enforce the or­
dinances of the City of New Orleans and the laws of 
the State of Louisiana;

d. ) that the defendant named in subparagraph (d) 
resides in the City of New Orleans and is the President 
of this defendant;

e. ) that this defendant is organized and exists under 
the laws of the State of Louisiana with its principal of­
fice and place of business in the City of New Orleans and 
is engaged in the business of operating within the City 
of New Orleans street cars, buses and trolley coaches 
for the transportation of passengers pursuant to fran­
chises and indeterminate permits granted by said City 
and also operates one trolley coach line in the Parish of 
St. Bernard and two bus lines in the Parish of Jeffer­
son; and

f.) that this defendant does maintain on its street



17

cars, buses and trolley coaches signs for the purpose of 
providing separate but equal accommodations for the 
white and colored races in compliance with the laws 
of the State of Louisiana.

3.

Defendant admits the allegations of paragraphs 6, 8, and 
9.

WHEREFORE, defendant prays that plaintiffs’ suit be 
dismissed at their cost.

(Signed) GIBBONS BURKE 
Gibbons Burke of 
Chaffe, McCall, Phillips,
Burke & Hopkins 
1500 National Bank of 
Commerce Bldg.
New Orleans, Louisiana

(Signed) A. J. WAECHTER, JR.
Arthur J. Waechter of 
Jones, Walker, Waechter, 
Poitevent & Denegre 
1547 National Bank of 
Commerce Bldg.
New Orleans, Louisiana



18

ANSWER OF GEORGE S. DINWIDDIE 

(Number and Title Omitted)

Filed: March 22, 1957

NOW INTO1 COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes 
GEORGE S. DINWIDDIE, named defendant herein, and 
for answer to the complaint with respect avers:

FIRST DEFENSE

That the complaint filed herein fails to state a claim 
against this defendant upon which relief can be granted.

SECOND DEFENSE

1.

Defendant denies the allegations of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 
4, 5, 10 and 11.

2.

Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 7 except 
he admits:

a.) that the defendants named in subparhgraph 
(a) are residents of the City of New Orleans, State of 
Louisiana and hold the respective offices described in 
said subparagraph and are vested with the power and 
authority to regulate the defendant, New Orleans 
Public Service Inc.;



19

b. ) that the defendant named in subparagraph (b) 
is a resident of the City of New Orleans, State of Lou­
isiana, and holds the office described in said subpara­
graph and is vested with the power to supervise the 
operations of the defendant, New Orleans Public Serv­
ice Inc.;

c. ) that the defendant named in subparagraph (c) 
is a resident of the City of New Orleans, is the Superin­
tendent of Police of the City of New Orleans and is 
vested with the power and duty to enforce the ordin­
ances of the City of New Orleans and the laws of the 
State of Louisiana;

d. ) that this defendant named in subparagraph (d) 
resides in the City of New Orleans and is the President 
of the New Orleans Public Service Inc.;

e. ) that the defendant, New Orleans Public Service 
Inc., is organized and exists under the laws of the State 
of Louisiana with its principal office and place of busi­
ness in the City of New Orleans and is engaged in the 
business of operating within the City of New Orleans 
street cars, buses and trolley coaches for the transporta­
tion of passengers pursuant to franchises and indeter­
minate permits granted by said City and also operates, 
one trolley coach line in the Parish of St. Bernard and 
two bus lines in the Parish of Jefferson; and

f. ) that the defendant, New Orleans Public Service 
Inc., maintains on its street cars, buses and trolley 
coaches signs for the purpose of providing separate 
but equal accommodations for the white and colored



20

races in compliance with the laws of the State of Lou­
isiana.

3.

Defendant admits the allegations of paragraphs 6, 8 and 
9.

WHEREFORE, defendant prays that plaintiffs’ suit be 
dismissed at their cost.

(Signed) GIBBONS BURKE 
Gibbons Burke of 
Chaffe, McCall, Phillips,
Burke & Hopkins,
1500 National Bank of 
Commerce Bldg.,
New Orleans, Louisiana.

(Signed) A. J. WAECHTER, JR.
ARTHUR J. WAECHTER of 
Jones, Walker,Waechter, 
Poitevent & Denegre,
1547 National Bank of 
Commerce Bldg.,
New Orleans, Louisiana.



21

MOTION OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS 
TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 12 B

(Number and Title Omitted)

Filed: March 22, 1957

Defendants, deLesseps S. Morrison, Individually and a 
Mayor of the City of New Orleans; Paul Burke; Fred J. Cas- 
sibry; Glen P. Classen; Walter M. Duffourc; James E. Fitz- 
morris, Jr. and Victor H. Schiro, Individually and as Coun- 
cilmen of the City of New Orleans; Paul L. Ristroph, In­
dividually and as Director of Utilities, Department of Utili­
ties of the City of New Orleans; Provosty A. Dayries, In­
dividually and as Superintendent of Police of the City of 
New Orleans, move the Court as follows:

I .

To dismiss the action because the complaint fails to state 
a claim against defendants upon which relief can be granted.

II.

To dismiss the action on the grounds that the Court is 
without jurisdiction.

III.

To dismiss the action on the grounds that defendants are 
not proper parties since they are not vested with enforce­
ment powers.



22

(Signed) HENRY B. CURTIS
Henry B. Curtis, City Attorney 
City Hall, New Orleans, La.

(Signed) ALVIN J. LISKA
Alvin J. Liska, Assistant City 
Attorney and Trial Attorney

(Signed) JACK P. F. GREMILLION 
Jack P. F. Gremillion,
By W. P. Schuler 
Attorney General

(Signed) WILLIAM SCHULER 
William Schuler,
Assistant Attorney General

(Signed) GEORGE M. PONDER 
George M. Ponder 
First Asst. Atty General 
By W. P, SCHULER



23

MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS FOR 
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

(Number and Title Omitted)

Filed: April 10, 1957

Plaintiffs Abraham L. Davis, Jr. and William R. Adams 
move the Court that judgment be rendered for plaintiffs 
herein on the pleadings for the reason that the answer of 
defendants New Orleans Public Service, Inc., and George 
S. Dinwiddie, individually and as president of the New 
Orleans Public Service, Inc., together with the pleadings on 
behalf of the City of New Orleans and other defendants 
herein show that plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as 
prayed for in their complaint.

(Signed) A. P. TUREAUD 
A. P. Tureaud 
Attorney for Plaintiffs 
1821 Orleans Avenue 
New Orleans, Louisiana



24

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 
FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

(Number and Title Omitted)

Filed: April 15, 1957

Defendants, deLesseps S. Morrison, Individually and a 
Mayor of the City of New Orleans; Paul Burke; Fred J. Cas- 
sibry; Glen P. Clasen; Walter M. Duffourc; James E. Fitz- 
morris, Jr. and Victor H. Schiro, Individually and as Coun- 
cilmen of the City of New Orleans; Paul L. Ristroph, In­
dividually and as Director of Utilities, Department of Utili­
ties of the City of New Orleans; Provosty A. Dayries, In­
dividually and as Superintendent of Police of the City of 
New Orleans, move the Court as follows; with full reserva­
tion to the motions to dismiss filed under Rule 12-B opposes 
plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on the fol­
lowing grounds, to-wit:

I

Defendants herein have not filed any answer, but mere­
ly have opposed plaintiffs’ petition under Rule 12-B.

II

In the alternative in the event that this Court is of the 
opinion that plaintiffs’ motion should be treated as a sum- 
mary judgment, then in that event defendants herein pray 
for the dismissal of said motion on the grounds that plain­
tiffs’ pleadings were not filed and served at least ten days



25

before the time fixed for the hearing as provided for un­
der Section C of Rule 56.

Defendants herein pray that its motions to dismiss under 
Rule 12-B be upheld and in the alternative, that the motion 
by defendants for judgment on the pleadings be dismissed. 
In the further alternative defendants herein pray that if 
plaintiffs’ motion be considered as a motion for summary 
judgment, then it likewise be dismissed.

(Signed) HENRY R. CURTIS 
HENRY B. CURTIS 
City Attorney
City Hall, New Orleans, La.

(Signed) ALVIN J. LISKA 
ALVIN J. LISKA,
Assistant City Attorney and 
Trial Attorney

(Signed) JACK P. F. GREMILLION 
JACK P. F. GREMILLION 
Attorney General 

By W. P. SCHULER

(Signed) WILLIAM P. SCHULER 
WILLIAM SCHULER,
Assistant Attorney General

(Signed) GEORGE M. PONDER 
GEORGE M. PONDER,
First Asst. Atty. General 

By W. P. SCHULER



26

MINUTE ENTRY: Wright, J:

April 17, 1957

HEARING ON MOTIONS AND ORDER DISMISSING 
COMPLAINT AS TO COUNCILMEN OF CITY OF NEW 
ORLEANS and PAUL L. RISTROP, ETC. & FURTHER 
ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON OTHER MOTIONS.

(Number and Title Omitted)

This cause came on this day to be heard on motion of 
certain defendants to dismiss, and on motion of plaintiffs 
for judgment on the pleadings and opposition to plaintiffs’ 
motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Present: A. P. Tureaud, Esq.,
Attorney for Plaintiffs

Henry B. Curtis, Esq.,
Alvin J. Liska, Esq.,
William Schuler, Esq.,

Attorneys for Defendants

Argument;

IT IS ORDERED BY THE COURT that the motion to 
dismiss be and the same is hereby granted as to Paul Burke, 
Fred J. Cassibry; Glen P. Classen; Walter M. Duffourc; 
James E. Fitzmorris, Jr., and Victor H. Schiro, Individually 
and as councilmen of the City of New Orleans; Paul L. Ris- 
trop, Individually and as Director of Utilities, Department 
of Utilities of the City of New Orleans.



27

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing of other 
motions be and the same is hereby continued to be re­
assigned.

(Signed) J. S. W.

ANSWER OF MAYOR MORRISON 
and PROVOSTY A. DAYRIES

(Number and Title Omitted)

Filed: April 23, 1957

NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned Counsel comes 
deLesseps S, Morrison, individually and as Mayor of the City 
of New Orleans, and Provosty A. Dayries, individually and 
as Superintendent of the Police of the City of New Orleans, 
named defendants herein, and with full reservations to the 
pleadings heretofore filed, and for answer to the complaint 
with respect avers:

1.

Defendants deny the allegations of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 
5, 10 and 11 of the complaint.

2.

Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 
6 and 9 for lack of sufficient information to justify a be­
lief.



28

3.

Defendants deny the allegations of paragraphs 7, but ad­
mits:

a) Defendant, deLesseps S. Morrison is a resident of 
the City of New Orleans, Parish of Orleans, State of 
Louisiana and is Mayor of the City of New Orleans.

c) Defendant, Provosty A. Dayries is a resident of 
the City of New Orleans, Parish of Orleans, State of 
Louisiana and is Superintendent of Police of the City 
of New Orleans.

In answering, defendants aver that the Home Rule Charter 
defines the duties of defendants.

4.

Defendants admit the allegation contained in paragraph 
8 of plaintiffs’ complaint.

WHEREFORE, defendants pray that plaintiffs’ suit be 
dismissed at their cost.

(Signed) HENRY B. CURTIS 
HENRY B. CURTIS 
City Attorney

(Signed) ALVIN J. LISKA 
ALVIN J. LISKA 
Assistant City Attorney and 
Trial Attorney



29

(Signed) JACK P. F. GREMILLION ajl 
JACK P. F. GREMILLION 
Attorney General

(Signed) GEORGE M. PONDER ajl
GEORGE M. PONDER 
First Assistant Attorney General

(Signed) WILLIAM SCHULER ajl
WILLIAM SCHULER 
Assistant Attorney General

MOTION & ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 
AS TO GEORGE S. DINWIDDIE

(Number and Title Omitted)

Filed: May 2, 1957

NOW COME plaintiffs herein through their attorney, 
A. P. Tureaud, and defendant George S. Dinwiddie, through 
his attorneys Gibbons Burke and A. J. Waeehter, Jr,, and 
move the Court that in view of the decision of the Court 
entered into this matter on April 17, 1957, with respect 
to the individual members of the Council of the City of 
New Orleans, this action may be dismissed against George
S. Dinwiddie.

(Signed) A. P. TUREAUD 
A. P. Tureaud, 
Attorney for Plaintiffs



30

(Signed) GIBBONS BURKE 
Gibbons Burke

(Signed) A. J. WAECHTER, JR.
A. J. Waechter, Jr.
Attorneys for defendant,
George S. Dinwiddie

ORDER

The foregoing motion considered,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint be and it 
hereby is dismissed as to defendant George S. Dinwiddie.

New Orleans, La., May 2nd, 1957.

(Signed) J. SKELLY WRIGHT 
UNITED STATES 
DISTRICT JUDGE

MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS’
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Number and Title Omitted)

Filed: May 6, 1957

Plaintiffs, Abraham L. Davis, Jr., and William R. Adams 
move the Court to enter summary judgment for the plain­
tiffs in accordance with the provisions of Rule 56 of the



31

Rules of Civil Procedure, on the ground that the pleadings 
heretofore filed and the affidavits annexed hereto show that 
the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

(Signed) A. P. TUREAUD 
A. P. Tureaud,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs 
1821 Orleans Avenue 
New Orleans, Louisiana

PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF HIS 
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Number and Title Omitted)

STATE OF LOUISIANA 
PARISH OF ORLEANS

WILLIAM R. ADAMS, being duly sworn states:

That he is the plaintiff in the above entitled action and 
makes this affidavit in support of an application for sum­
mary judgment against the defendants herein.

That he is of the Negro Race.

That he uses and intends to use in the future the public 
transportation facilities of the City of New Orleans that are 
operated by the New Orleans Public Service, Inc.



32

That because he is a Negro he is compelled to sit behind 
a sign marked “For Colored Patrons Only” when using 
the said transportation facilities.

That these signs are placed on the said transportation 
facilities by the New Orleans Public Service, Inc. in com­
pliance with the law of the state of Louisiana which de­
crees that the races shall be segregated in the use of the 
said facilities, copies of which law are prominently dis­
played in the said facilities.

That on January 9, 1957, he and other Negro citizens 
held a conference with defendant, George S. Dinwiddie, 
President of the New Orleans Public Service, Inc., at which 
time the said New* Orleans Public Service, Inc. was re­
quested to discontinue the operation of its said facilities on 
a basis of racial segregation; that to the said request, the 
following response was given, to wit:

“Our purpose is to provide safe, efficient, econ­
omical and courteous transit service for all the 
citizens in New Orleans. The United States Su­
preme Court decision was rendered in a case arising 
in Montgomery, Alabama. Public Service is char­
tered under the laws of the State of Louisiana. The 
applicable laws of Louisiana have not been re­
viewed by the United States Supreme Court and 
must, therefore, be complied with. In our judg­
ment, Public Service can not presume to determine 
judicial and regulatory matters.

“In carrying out our purpose of providing safe, 
low-cost transit service, we are not at liberty to use



33

our own discretion in all decisions about operations.
We must operate within the framework of appli­
cable State and local laws. Enforcement of the law 
is a responsibility of the State and local officials.

“Under these circumstances, the company is con­
tinuing its present operating practices.”

That the above statement was read aloud to affiant and 
to the other Negro citizens present in said conference, and 
a copy thereof was given to affiant and to each of the said 
other Negro citizens present.

That notwithstanding the said request made by affiant 
and other Negro citizens, defendant, the New Orleans Pub­
lic Service, Inc., continued to operate and at the present 
time still operates its transportation facilities on a segre­
gated basis.

(Signed) WILLIAM R. ADAMS

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS 3rd 
DAY OF MAY, 1957.

(Signed) ERNEST N. MORIAL 
NOTARY PUBLIC



34

PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF 
HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Number and Title Omitted)

STATE OF LOUISIANA 
PARISH OF ORLEANS

ABRAHAM L. DAVIS, JR., being duly sworn states:

That he is the plaintiff in the above entitled action and 
makes this affidavit in support of an application for sum­
mary judgment against the defendants herein.

That he is of the Negro Race.

That he uses and intends to use in the future the public 
transportation facilities of the City of New Orleans that 
are operated by the New Orleans Public Service, Inc.

That because he is a Negro he is compelled to sit behind 
a sign marked “For Colored Patrons Only” when using 
the said transportation facilities.

That these signs are placed on the said transportation fa­
cilities by the New Orleans Public Service, Inc. in com­
pliance with the law of the state of Louisiana which de­
crees that the races shall be segregated in the use of the 
said facilities, copies of which law are prominently displayed 
in the said facilities.

That on January 9, 1957, he and other Negro citizens held 
a conference with defendant, George S. Dinwiddie, President



35

of the New Orleans Public Service, Inc., at which time 
the said New Orleans Public Service, Inc. was requested to 
discontinue the operation of its said facilities on a basis 
of racial segregation; that to the said request, the following 
response was given, to: wit:

“Our purpose is to provide safe, efficient, econ­
omical and courteous transit service for all the 
citizens in New Orleans. The United States Su­
preme Court decision was rendered in a case arising 
in Montgomery, Alabama. Public Service is char­
tered under the laws of the State of Louisiana. The 
applicable laws of Louisiana have not been re­
viewed by the United States Supreme Court and 
must, therefore, be complied with. In our judg­
ment, Public Service can not presume to determine 
judicial and regulatory matters.

“In carrying out our purpose of providing safe, 
low-cost transit service, we are not at liberty to 
use our own discretion in all decisions about op­
erations. We must operate within the framework 
of applicable State and local laws. Enforcement 
of the law is a responsibility of the State and local 
officials,

“Under these circumstances, the company is 
continuing its present operating practices.”

That the above statement was read aloud to affiant and 
to the other Negro citizens present in said conference, 
and a copy thereof was given to affiant and to each of the 
said other Negro citizens present.



36

That notwithstanding the said request made by affiant 
and other Negro citizens, defendant, the New Orleans Pub­
lic Service, Inc., continued to operate and at the present 
time still operates its transportation facilities on a segre­
gated basis.

(Signed) ABRAHAM L. DAVIS, JR.

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS 3rd 
DAY OF MAY, 1957.

(Signed) ERNEST N. MORIAL 
NOTARY PUBLIC.

DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION 
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Number and Title Omitted)

Received: May 13, 1957

Defendants, deLesseps S. Morrison, individually, and as 
Mayor of the City of New Orleans, and Provosty A. Dayries, 
individually, and as Superintendent of Police of the City 
of New Orleans, move the Court as follows:

1

Defendants deny that plaintiffs are entitled to summary 
judgment in accordance with the provisions of Rule 56 of 
Civil procedure.



37

2

Defendants aver that there is a substantial issue of fact 
raised by the pleadings.

3

Defendants aver that the New Orleans Public Service, 
Inc., should be dismissed as a party defendant since the ulti­
mate relief sought herein is a declaration of the constitution­
ality of State law and an injunction of the enforcement of 
that law, and that type of relief can be granted only against 
the proper legal public authorities responsible for the en­
forcement of this law.

Defendants herein pray that plaintiffs’ motion for sum­
mary judgment under Rule 56 be dismissed.

And for all general and equitable relief.

(Signed) HENRY B, CURTIS 
HENRY B. CURTIS 
OF COUNSEL

(Signed) ALVIN J. LISKA 
ALVIN J. LISKA 
CITY ATTORNEY

(Signed) JOSEPH H. HURNDON 
JOSEPH H. HURNDON 
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY



38

(Signed) JACK P. F. GREMILLION 
JACK P. F. GREMILLION 
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR 
THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

(Signed) GEORGE M. PONDER 
GEORGE M. PONDER 
FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEY 
GENERAL FOR THE STATE 
OF LOUISIANA

(Signed) WILLIAM P. SCHULER 
WILLIAM P. SCHULER 
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY 
GENERAL FOR THE STATE 
OF LOUISIANA



39

DEFENDANTS’ AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF 
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 

FOR JUDGMENT

(Number and Title Omitted)

Received: May 14, 1957

STATE; OF LOUISIANA 
PARISH OF ORLEANS

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally came 
and appeared

PROVOSTY A. DAYRIES,
Superintendent of Police of the City of New Orleans, who 
upon being duly sworn did depose and say:

That he is one of the defendants in the above entitled ac­
tion, and makes this affidavit in support of the opposition 
filed on behalf of himself and DeLesseps S. Morrison, in­
dividually and as Mayor of the City of New Orleans; that he 
is Superintendent of Police of the City of New Orleans, 
and that of his own knowledge, plaintiffs Abraham L. 
Davis, Jr. and William R. Adams have not been arrested 
in connection with the violation of LSA-R.S. 45:194-196, in­
clusive, and LSA-R.S. 45:731-733, inclusive, Statutes of the 
State of Louisiana. Nor has he given any instruction to the 
Police Department of the City of New Orleans for the arrest 
of the aforementioned plaintiffs, nor has he received any 
recommendations or instructions from DeLesseps S. Mor­
rison, Mayor, concerning the arrest of Abraham L. Davis, 
Jr. and William R. Adams for violation of LSA-R.S. 45:194-



40

196, inclusive, and LSA-R.S. 45:731-733, inclusive, Statutes 
of the State of Louisiana.

(Signed) PROVOSTY A. DAYRIES

Sworn to and subscribed before 
me this 14th day of May, 1957.

(Signed) ALVIN J. LISKA
Alvin J. Liska, Notary Public

MINUTE ENTRY Wright, J :

May 15, 1957

HEARING ON MOTION OF PLAINTIFF FOR SUMMARY 
JUDGMENT AND MOTION OF CITY OF NEW ORLEANS 
TO DISMISS - ARGUMENT - ORDER GRANTING DE­
CLARATORY JUDGMENT ALONG WITH PERMANENT

INJUNCTION

(Number and Title Omitted

This cause came on this day to be heard on motion of 
plaintiff for summary judgment and motion of City of 
New Orleans: to dismiss.

Present: A. P. Tureaud, Esq.,
Attorney for Plaintiffs 

Alvin J. Liska, Esq.,
Attorney for City of N. O.



41

Argument;

IT IS THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT that all State 
Statutes which require segregation on transportation facili­
ties in the City of New Orleans, and particularly those 
transportation facilities operated by the Defendant New Or­
leans Public Service Company, are unconstitutional and 
therefore invalid.

The Declaratory Judgment shall issue along with the 
permanent injunction.

(Signed) J S W

RULING OF THE COURT

THE COURT:
The Court is ready to rule unless Counsel for any party 

wants to be heard.

Counsel have argued that since no one has been arrested 
for violating the laws requiring segregation on the buses, 
no issue is presented for decision by this Court.

It is not this Court’s view that in our civilization it is 
necessary to have incidents requiring arrests to have the 
rights of people declared. Here we have the defendants in 
the case, or, at least, one of them, indicating that it is op­
erating under State Laws which require segregation in the 
buses, and pursuant to those laws signs have been used in 
the buses, are being used in the buses, and will continue 
to be used in the buses to1 enforce that segregation. The 
Mayor of the City of New Orleans and the Chief of his



42

Police Force have sworn to uphold those laws. As long 
as those laws have not been declared invalid, the situation 
will remain in status quo, and segregation will be enforced 
as a matter of course on the buses.

Consequently, there is before the Court a justiciable 
controversy. This matter is ripe for Declaratory Judg­
ment. Moreover, it is ripe for injunction.

It is the Judgment of the Court that all State Statutes 
which require segregation on transportation facilities in 
the City of New Orleans, and particularly those transporta­
tion facilities operated by the Defendant New Orleans 
Public Service Company, are unconstitutional and there­
fore invalid. The Declaratory Judgment shall issue along 
with the permanent injunction.

JUDGMENT

(Number and Title Omitted)

Filed: May 24, 1957

This cause came on for hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for 
summary judgment.

The Court, having carefully considered the pleadings, the 
record heretofore made in this cause, oral arguments and 
submission of the briefs by all parties and, after being fully 
advised in the premises, found in its opinion handed down 
orally on May 15, 1957 that the enforced segregation of



43

Negro passengers solely because of race and/or color on 
buses, street cars, or street railways and trolley buses op­
erating within the City of New Orleans, State of Louisiana, 
as required by La. R.S. 45:194, 45:195, 45:196, 45:731, 45:732 
and 45:733, violates the Constitution and laws of the United 
States.

Now in accordance with that opinion it is ORDERED, 
ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all laws of the State of 
Louisiana requiring segregation of the races on buses, street 
cars, street railways or trolley buses operating within 
the City of New Orleans, are unconstitutional and void in 
that they deny and deprive plaintiffs and other Negro citi­
zens similarly situated of the equal protection of the laws 
and due process of law secured by the Fourteenth Amend­
ment to the Constitution of the United States and rights 
and privileges secured by Title 42, United States Code, Sec­
tions 1981 and 1983.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DE­
CREED that the defendants, their successors in office, as­
signs, agents, servants, employees and persons acting on 
their behalf, be and they are hereby permanently enjoined 
and restrained (1) from enforcing the aforesaid statutes 
requiring plaintiffs and other Negroes similarly situated to 
submit to segregation in the use of the buses, street cars, 
street railways and trolley buses, in the City of New Or­
leans, and (2) from doing any acts or taking any action which 
would require any public transportation facility, or its driv­
ers, to segregate white and Negro passengers in the opera­
tion of buses, street cars, street railways, or trolley buses 
in the City of New Orleans, State of Louisiana.



44

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DE­
CREED that this judgment shall become effective when 
it shall have become final after exhaustion of appeals,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DE­
CREED that a copy of this judgment be served upon each of 
said defendants.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants pay all 
costs.

(Signed) J. SKELLY WRIGHT 
UNITED STATES 
DISTRICT JUDGE

New Orleans, Louisiana 
May 24, 1957

MOTION FOR A REHEARING AND FOR A NEW TRIAL 

(Number and Title Omitted)

Filed: May 31, 1957

Defendant, deLESSEPS S. MORRISON, individually and 
as Mayor of the City of New Orleans and PROVOSTY A. 
DAYRIES, individually and as Superintendent of Police 
and NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SERVICE, INC. move the 
Court to set aside the findings of fact, conclusions of law 
and judgment entered herein on the 24th day of May, 1957



45

and to grant defendants a rehearing and new trial on the 
grounds:

1.

That the Court erred in rendering summary judgment in 
this matter in view of the fact that there are no allegations 
in the complaint and there is no proof in the record of spec­
ific instances in which plaintiffs or any other negroes were 
compelled by defendants, their agents or employees at any 
time to segregate from white patrons using public transpor­
tation facilities and therefore there exists a substantial issue 
of fact concerning the complaint filed herein and the sup­
porting affidavits annexed thereto.

2.

The Judgment is contrary to law in that plaintiffs were 
granted a declaratory judgment without first establish­
ing that there existed a justicable controversy entitling 
them to a declaratory judgment. Theodore Gibson, Jr., et 
al. Vs. Board of Public Instruction of Dade County, Fla. 
S. S. Dist. Ct. So. Dist, Fla. Nov. 29, 1956, No. 6978-M; Civil, 
Vol. 2, Race Relations Law Reporter, page 9; Whitter vs. 
West Plaints, Mo., 137 Fed. 2d 938.

3.

The Judgment is contrary to law in that plaintiffs were 
granted a permanent injunction without first showing that 
there was danger of suffering irreparable injury. Linehan 
vs. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, 116, 
Fed. Supp. 401-404; Douglas vs. City of Jeannette, 319 U. S.



46

157, 163-164, 33 S. Ct. 877, 882, 87 L. Ed. 1324; Beal vs. 
Missouri Pacific R. R. Corporation, 312 U. S. 45; 49-50, 
61 S. Ct. 418, 85 L. Ed. 577; Spielman Motor Sales Co. Vs. 
Dodge 295 U. S. 89-95, 55 S. Ct. 678, 79 L. Ed. 1322.

4.

That the Court erred in not dismissing the New Orleans 
Public Service, Inc. as a party defendant since the ulti­
mate relief sought herein was a declaration of the constitu­
tionality of State law and an injunction of the enforcement 
of that law, which type of relief can be granted only against 
the proper legal public authorities responsible for the en­
forcement of this law. Garmon, et al. vs. Miami Transit Co., 
Inc. et al., U. S. Dist. Ct. So. Dist., Fla. Jan. 4, 1957, Civil 
No. 7210-M. Vol. 2 Race Relations Law Reporter, page 
129.

WHEREFORE, defendants pray that the Opinion and 
Decree rendered herein on May 24, 1957 be reconsidered 
and set aside and that a new trial and rehearing be granted 
herein to consider the errors urged above, and on final 
hearing that an Order issue dismissing the suit of the 
plaintiffs at their costs; for all Orders and Decrees neces­
sary and for general and equitable relief.

Respectfully submitted,

(Signed) HENRY B. CURTIS 
HENRY B. CURTIS 
OF COUNSEL



47

(Signed) ALVIN J. LISKA 
ALVIN J. LISKA 
CITY ATTORNEY

(Signed) JOSEPH H. HURNDON 
JOSEPH H. HURNDON 
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY

(Signed) JACK P. F. GREMILLION 
JACK P. F. GREMILLION, 
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR 
THE STATE: OF LOUISIANA

(Signed) GEORGE M. PONDER 
GEORGE M. PONDER,
FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEY 
GENERAL FOR STATE OF 
LOUISIANA

(Signed) WILLIAM P. SCHULER 
WILLIAM P. SCHULER 
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY 
GENERAL FOR STATE OF 
LOUISIANA

(Signed) GIBBONS BURKE RS
GIBBONS BURKE of CAFFEE, 
McCALL, PHILLIPS, BURKE 
& HOPKINS

(Signed) ARTHUR J. WAECHTER RS 
ARTHUR J. WAECHTER of 
JONES, WALKER, WAECHTER, 
POITEVENT & DENEGRE



48

AMENDED JUDGMENT 

(Number and Title Omitted)

Filed: June 14, 1957 

Entered: June 17, 1957

IT IS ORDERED that the judgment formerly entered 
herein on May 24, 1957 be and the same is hereby amended 
as follows:

AMENDED JUDGMENT

This cause came on for hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for 
summary judgment.

The Court, having carefully considered the pleadings, the 
record heretofore made in this cause, oral arguments and 
submission of the briefs by all parties and, after being 
fully advised in the premises, found in its opinion handed 
down orally on May 15, 1957 that the enforced segregation 
of Negro passengers solely because of race and/or color 
on buses, street cars, or street railways and trolley buses 
operated by the New Orleans Public Service in the State 
of Louisiana, as required by La. R.S. 45:194, 45:195, 45:196, 
45:731, 45:732 and 45:733, violates the Constitution and 
laws of the United States.

Now in accordance with that opinion it is ORDERED, 
ADJUDGED and DECREED that all laws of the State of 
Louisiana requiring segregation of the races on buses, street 
cars, street railways or trolley buses are unconstitutional



49

and void in that they deny and deprive plaintiffs and other 
Negro citizens similarly situated of the equal protection of 
the laws and due process of law secured by the Fourteenth 
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and 
rights and privileges secured by Title 42, United States 
Code, Sections 1981 and 1983.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED ,and DE­
CREED that the defendants, their successors in office, as­
signs, agents, servants, employees and persons acting on 
their behalf, be and they are hereby permanently enjoined 
and restrained (1) from enforcing the aforesaid statutes 
requiring plaintiffs and other Negroes similarly situated 
to submit to segregation in the use of the buses, street cars, 
street railways and trolley buses, and (2) from doing any 
acts or taking any action which would require any public 
transportation facility, or its drivers, to segregate white 
and Negro passengers in the operation of buses, street cars, 
street railways, or trolley buses in the State of Louisiana.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DE­
CREED that this judgment shall become effective when it 
shall have become final after exhaustion of appeals.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DE­
CREED that a copy of this judgment be served upon each 
of said defendants.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants pay all 
costs.



50

(Signed) J. SKELLY WRIGHT 
UNITED STATES 
DISTRICT JUDGE

New Orleans, Louisiana 
June 14, 1957

MINUTE: ENTRY: Wright, J:
June 12, 1957

HEARING ON MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND 
ORDER DENYING SAME

(Number and Title Omitted)
Entered: June 18, 1957

This cause came on this day to be heard on motion of de­
fendants for a rehearing and for a new trial.

Present: A. P. Tureaud, Esq.,
Attorney for Plaintiff

Henry B. Curtis, Esq.,
Alvin J. Liska, Esq.,
Harry McCall, Esq.,

Attorneys for defendants.



51

Argument;

IT IS ORDERED by the Court that the motion of De­
fendants for a rehearing and for a new trial be and the same 
is hereby DENIED.

(Signed) JSW

NOTICE OF APPEAL 

(Number and Title Omitted)

Filed: June 21, 1957

Notice is hereby given that deLESSEPS S. MORRISON, 
individually and as Mayor of the City of New Orleans, PRO- 
VOSTY A. DAYRIES, individually and as Superintendent 
of Police of the City of New Orleans, and New Orleans 
Public Service Inc., a corporation, defendants above named, 
hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Fifth Circuit from the Opinion and Decree entered in 
this action on May 29, 1957, Motion for rehearing or new 
trial having been denied June 12, 1957.

(Signed) ALVIN J. LISKA 
ALVIN J. LISKA 
CITY ATTORNEY

(Signed) JOSEPH H. HURNDON 
JOSEPH H. HURNDON 
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY



52

(Signed) JACK P. F. GREMILLION 
JACK P. F. GREMILLION, 
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR 
THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

(Signed) GEORGE M. PONDER 
GEORGE M. PONDER,
FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEY 
GENERAL FOR STATE OF 
LOUISIANA

(Signed) WILLIAM P. SCHULER 
WILLIAM P. SCHULER, 
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY 
GENERAL FOR STATE OF 
LOUISIANA

(Signed) GIBBONS BURKE 
GIBBONS BURKE of CAFFEE, 
McCALL, PHILLIPS, BURKE 
& HOPKINS 
ATTORNEY FOR NEW 
ORLEANS PUBLIC SERVICE 
INC.

(Signed) ARTHUR J. WAECHTER 
ARTHUR J. WAECHTER of 
JONES, WALKER, WAECHTER, 
POITEVENT1 & DENEGRE AT­
TORNEY FOR NEW ORLEANS 
PUBLIC SERVICE INC.



53

DESIGNATION OF RECORD ON APPEAL 

(Number and Title Omitted)

Filed: June 25, 1957

Appellant designates the entire record of these pro­
ceedings to be contained in the record on appeal in this ac­
tion.

(Signed) ALVIN J. LISKA 
ALVIN J. LISKA,
CITY ATTORNEY

(Signed) JOSEPH H. HURNDON 
JOSEPH H. HURNDON 
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY

(Signed) JACK P. F. GREMILLION 
JACK P. F. GREMILLION, 
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR 
THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

(Signed) GEORGE M. PONDER 
GEORGE M. PONDER,
FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEY 
GENERAL FOR STATE OF 
LOUISIANA



54

(Signed) WILLIAM P. SCHULER 
WILLIAM P. SCHULER, 
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY 
GENERAL FOR STATE; OF 
LOUISIANA

(Signed) GIBBONS BURKE
GIBBONS BURKE of CHAFFE, 
McCALL, PHILLIPS, BURKE 
& HOPKINS
ATTORNEY FOR NEW OR­
LEANS PUBLIC SERVICE, INC.

(Signed) ARTHUR J. WAECHTER
ARTHUR J. WAECHTER of 
JONES, WALKER, WAECHTER, 
POITEVENT & DENEGRE, AT­
TORNEY FOR NEW ORLEANS 
PUBLIC SERVICE INC.



55

CLERK’S CERTIFICATE

I, A. DALLAM O’BRIEN, JR., Clerk of the United 
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, 
do hereby certify the foregoing 54 pages to contain a 
true and correct copy of the record in the case entitled 
“Abraham L. Davis, Jr., et al. -vs- deLesseps S. Morrison, 
etc. et al.” No. 6418 of the Civil Action Docket of this Court, 
as made up in accordance with the Designation of Contents 
copied herein.

WITNESS MY HAND and the
seal of said Court at the City of 
New Orleans, Louisiana, this / i f  
day of 1957.

A. DALLAM O’BRIEN, JR., 
Clerk

By ------------_
Deputy Clerk

(SEAL OF COURT)



\

















Quality Printers, New Orleans, La.