Jeffers v. Whitley Appendix to Appellants' Brief

    I n  t h e

llmtxi* OXmtrt of Appeals
F oe t h e  F ourth  C ircu it  

No. 8593

A lexander J effers  and S ylveen  J effer s , minors, and J o h n  
L. J effers  and A n n ie  L. J effer s , their parents and 
next friends; N athan  B row n , L unsford  B row n , and 
S h e l ia h  B row n , minors, and J asper B row n , their father 
and next friend; and C harlie  S aunders, J r., and F red 
S aunders, minors, and C. H. S aunders, their father and 
next friend,

Appellants,
-vs.-

T homas H. W h it l e y , Superintendent of the Public Schools 
of Caswell County, D avid L. J o h n so n , Chairman, C. N. 
B arber, J .  A . H odges, N. L. Oliver and J .  C. W il k in s , 
Members of the School Board of Caswell County,

Appellees.

APPENDIX TO APPELLANTS’ BRIEF

C. 0. P earson 
W illia m  A. M arsh

203% East Chapel Hill Street 
Durham, North Carolina

J ack G reenberg  
D errick  A. B e l l , J r .
J ames M. N abrit, III 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

Attorneys for Appellants



INDEX TO APPENDIX

Complaint .......... ..................................................  -j_a

Answer of Caswell County Board of Education....... 18a

Complaint for Supplemental Pleadings .....................  33a

Answer by Caswell County Board of Education .... 37a

Opinion ....... ........................................... ....................  41a

Judgment ..........................................................  53a

Stipulations (September, 1959) ................................  55a

Stipulations (December, 1959) ...... ...........................  72a

Complaint for Supplemental Pleadings.....................  74a

Answer to Complaint for Supplemental Pleadings .... 80a

Stipulations (October, 1960) ...........   g4a

Court Reporter’s Report of Trial With Depositions .. 99a

Excerpts From Transcript of Depositions—August
24> 1960 ....................................................................  99a

Thomas H. Whitley
Direct ..........................................................  99a

C. N. Barker
Direct........................................   107a

PAGE



E. J. Smith.
Direct....................................... ..................... 112a
Cross .............................................. .......—.... 114a

J. A. Hodges
Direct....................................... .....................  115a

N. L. Oliver
Direct.......... ......... ................ .......................- 117a
Cross ....................................... ......................  118a.

J. C. Wilkinson
Direct..................   118a
Cross .............................................................  120a

Excerpts From Transcript of Trial—November 3,
1960 .......................................................................... 120a

Plaintiffs’ Witnesses:
Thomas H, Whitley

Direct............................................................. 122a
Cross ......................................................   123a

Defendant’s Witnesses:
Clyde N. Barker

Direct...... .........................    123a
Cross .................................................................127a

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion .. 134a

Order Extending Time  ......... ......................... ......... 154a

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Deferment of Entry of Judg­
ment and for Leave to Proceed, etc.......................  155a

i i

PAGE



Ill

Motion for Leave to Amend Supplemental Complaint 157a

Minutes of Caswell County Board of Education......  159a

Plaintiffs’ Report to the Court and Motion for Entry
of Judgment......................................................   164a

Affidavit of Charlie H. Saunders ............................ 167a

Supplemental Opinion ................................................  169a

Judgment ................................................   175a

Notice of Appeal...... — .......        176a

PAGE



I n  t h e

States Sfetrtrt (Himrt
M iddle D istrict of N orth  Carolina 

...........................D ivision

M im ia  J effers  and A llen e  J effers , M inors by J o h n  L. 
J effers , th e ir  f a th e r  an d  n e x t fr ie n d ,

H ernalene M it c h e l l , Curtis M it c h e l l , Z elodis M itc h ell  
and V eria M it c h e l l , M inors by H u n ter  M itc h ell  and 
W if e , Ch r ist in e  M it c h e l l , th e ir  f a th e r  and  m o th e r  
re sp ec tiv e ly  an d  n ex t fr ie n d ,

M artha M it c h e l l , A da M itc h ell , Odel M itc h el l  and 
M aloy M it c h e l l , M inors by George M itc h el l  and 
W if e , A da M it c h e l l , th e ir  f a th e r  a n d  m o th e r re sp ec­
tiv e ly  a n d  n e x t fr ie n d ,

R u t h  M it c h e l l , T ony M itc h el l  and M ae T resea M it ­
c h ell , M inors by R obert M itc h el l  and W if e , M ande- 
l in e  M it c h e l l , th e ir  f a th e r  a n d  m o th e r  re sp ec tiv e ly  
a n d  n e x t fr ie n d ,

U llm an  L e e , H erm it  L e e , L eroy L e e , V elma  L ee and 
B oston L e e , M inors by H ubert L . L ee and W if e , E ster 
E. L ee , their father and mother respectively and next 
friend,

A lice  C olem an , M elvin  Colem an , R omeda Colem an , 
George Coleman and R oderick C olem an , M inors by 
W ill ie  C oleman and W if e , Ola J ane Colem an , th e ir  
f a th e r  an d  m o th e r re sp ec tiv e ly  an d  n ex t fr ie n d ,

A n il  B iglow and L uchaw  B iglow , M inors by G. H. B iglow , 
th e ir  f a th e r  a n d  n ex t fr ie n d ,



2a

W arren J effers , A lexander J effer s , C harlie J effers , 
S ylveen J effers , D oris J effers , E mma  L ou J effers 
and T homas J effers , M inors by J o h n  M. J effers  and 
W if e , A n n ie  L. J effers , th e ir  f a th e r  a n d  m o th e r r e ­
sp ec tiv e ly  a n d  n ex t fr ie n d ,

N athan  B row n , L unsford B rown and S h e l ia h  B row n , 
M inors by J asper B row n , th e ir  f a th e r  an d  n e x t fr ie n d ,

R obert H. P oteat, K attib A. P oteat, W ill ie  S. P oteat, 
S emond D. P oteat and L aura B. P oteat, M inors by 
R obert P oteat and W if e , K attie P oteat, th e ir  f a th e r  
an d  m o th e r  re sp ec tiv e ly  a n d  n e x t f r ie n d ,

C harlie S aunders, J r., F red S aunders and M eria S aun­
ders, M inors by C. H. S aunders and W if e , W ill ie  P. 
S aunders, th e ir  f a th e r  a n d  m o th e r  re sp ec tiv e ly  an d  n e x t 
fr ie n d ,

J o h n  L . J effers , H u n ter  M it c h e l l , C h r ist in e  M it c h e l l , 
George M it c h e l l , A da M it c h e l l , R obert M it c h e l l , 
M adeline M it c h e l l , H ubert L . L ee , E ster E . L e e , 
W ill ie  Colem an , Ola J ane Colem an , G. H. B iglow , 
J ohn  M. J effers , A n n ie  L . J effers , J asper B row n , 
Odessa B row n , R obert P oteat, K attie P oteat, C. H . 
S aunders, W ill ie  P. S aunders, E rnest Co n nley , L il ­
lian  J effers  and Ola M ae J effers ,

Plaintiffs,
—vs.-—

T homas H . W h it l e y , S u per in ten d en t  of t h e  P ublic 
S chools of Caswell County , D avid L. J o h nso n , Ch a ir­
m a n , C. N. B arber, J. A. H odges, N. L. Oliver , and J. C. 
W il k in s , M embers of t h e  S chool B oard of Caswell 
County , N orth  Carolina, Charles F. Carroll, S u per-



3a

INTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, E bWIN GlLL, JOHN
A. P r itc h ett , D allas H erring , A. S. B rower, Charles 
G. R ose, J r., Charles W. M cC rary, Oscar L. R ichard­
son, R. B arton H ayes, J. G erald C owan, B. B. Dou-
THERTY AND HAROLD L. TRIGG, MEMBERS OF THE STATE 
B oard of E ducation of N orth  Carolina,

Defendants.

Complaint

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and for the benefit 
of and on behalf of all other citizens and residents of 
Caswell County who may be similarly situated, allege :

1.
(a) The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 

Title 28, United States Code, Section 1331. This action 
arises under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitu­
tion of the United States, Section 1, and the Act of May 
31, 1870, Chapter 114, Section 16, 16 Stat. 144 (Title 42, 
United States Code, Section 1981), as hereinafter more 
fully appears. The matter in controversy exceeds exclusive 
of interest and costs, the sum or value of Three Thousand 
Dollars ($3,000.00).

(b) The jurisdiction of this Court is also invoked under 
Title 28, United States Code, Section 1343. This action is 
authorized by the Act of April 20, 1871, Chapter 22, Section 
1, 17 Stat. 13 (Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983), 
to be commenced by any citizens of the United States or 
other persons within the jurisdiction thereof to redress the 
deprivation, under color of State law, statute, ordinance, 
regulation, custom or usage, or rights, privileges and im­



4a

munities secured by the Fourteenth Amendment of the 
Constitution of the United States, Section 1, and by the 
Act of May 31, 1870, Chapter 114, Section 16, 16 Stat. 144 
(Title 42, United States Code, Section 1981), providing 
for the equal rights of citizens and of all persons within 
the jurisdiction of the United States, as hereinafter more 
fully appears.

(c) 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 re­
straining, upon the ground of unconstitutionality, the en­
forcement of provisions of the North Carolina General 
Statutes and Constitution, administrative order of the Cas­
well County Board of Education, and customs, practices 
and usages requiring or permitting segregation in educa­
tion in Caswell County and the State of North Carolina by 
restraining defendants from enforcing such statutes, con­
stitutional provisions, administrative orders, custom, prac­
tices and usages.

(d) This is a proceeding under Sections 2201 and 2202 
of Title 28, United States Code, for a declaratory judg­
ment to determine and define the rights and legal relations 
of plaintiffs in the subject matters of this controversy, 
and for a final adjudication of all matters in actual contro­
versy between parties to this cause; to-wit, the question, 
whether the enforcement, execution or operation of Articles 
21, 34 and 35, Chapter 115 of the General Statutes of 
North Carolina and Article 9, Sections 2 and 12 of the 
Constitution of the State of North Carolina or any other 
laws or orders which have the effect of maintaining or 
perpetuating segregation in public schools in the State by 
the defendants, against the plaintiffs and the class of per­

Complaint



5a

sons that they represent deny to them the privileges and 
immunities as citizens of the United States and the equal 
protection of the laws secured to them by Section 1 of the 
Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United 
States or rights and privileges secured to them by Section 
1981 of Title 42, United States Code, and are for these rea­
sons unconstitutional and void.

2.

Infant plaintiffs are Negroes, are citizens of the United 
States and of the State of North Carolina, and are resi­
dents of and domiciled in Caswell County, North Carolina. 
They are within the statutory age limit of eligibility to 
attend the public schools of said County and possess all 
qualifications and satisfy all requirements for admission 
thereto and are in fact attending public schools of said 
County operated by defendants.

3.
Adult plaintiffs are Negroes, citizens of the United States 

and of the State of North Carolina and are residents of 
and domiciled in Caswell County, North Carolina. They 
are parents and guardians of the infant plaintiffs.

4.
The plaintiffs bring this action in their own behalf and 

there being common questions of law and fact affecting the 
rights of all other Negro children attending the public 
schools in Caswell County, North Carolina, and their re­
spective parents and guardians, similarly situated and 
affected with reference to the matters here involved, wTho 
are so numerous as to make it impracticable to bring all

Complaint



6a

before the Court, and a common relief being sought, as will 
hereinafter more fully appear, bring this action pursuant 
to Rule 23 (a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 
as a class action, also on behalf of all other Negro children 
attending the public schools in Caswell County, North 
Carolina, and their respective jjarents and guardians simi­
larly situated and affected with reference to the matters 
here involved.

Complaint

5.
(a) The defendants, Thomas H. Whitley, Superintendent 

of Schools of Caswell County, David L. Johnson, C. N. 
Barber, J. A. Hodges, N. L. Oliver and J. C. Wilkinson, 
constitute the Caswell County Board of Education; said 
Board of Education maintains and generally supervises 
certain schools in said County for the education of white 
children exclusively and other schools in said County for 
the education of Negro children exclusively; that in the 
performance of these acts, the said defendants are acting 
pursuant to the direction and authority in State Constitu­
tion provisions, State Statutes, State administrative orders 
and legislative policy and as such are officers of the State 
of North Carolina enforcing and executing State Statutes 
and policy in Caswell County, North Carolina.

(b) Defendants Charles F. Carroll, Edwin Gill, John A. 
Pritchett, Dallas Herring, A. S. Brower, Charles G. Rose, 
Jr., Charles W. McCrary, Oscar L. Richardson, R. Barton 
Hayes, J. Gerald Cowan, B. B. Doutherty, and Harold L. 
Trigg are members of the State Board of Education of the 
State of North Carolina and are charged with the general 
supervision and administration of a free public school 
system of said State; the defendant, Charles F. Carroll 
is the State Superintendent of Public Instruction of the



7a

State of North Carolina and is the administrative head of 
the public school system and Secretary of the State Board 
of Education charged with the overall power and control 
and supervision of the entire public school system of North 
Carolina by determining and executing State constitutional 
and statutory laws and mandates of the same and also 
executing policies and directives of the State of North 
Carolina with reference to the public school system of said 
State. Said defendants are being sued in their official and 
individual capacities; that said defendants are citizens and 
residents of the State of North Carolina.

6.

On August 6, 1956, plaintiffs petitioned the Board of 
Education of Caswell County to abolish segregation in the 
Schools in their district; that said Board refused to de­
segregate said schools within its jurisdiction; that shortly 
thereafter, on September 10, 1956, the plaintiffs appealed 
to the State Board of Education and the Superintendent 
of Public Instruction of the State of North Carolina to 
order the Caswell County Board of Education to desegre­
gate the schools within its jurisdiction, but said order was 
not granted; that plaintiffs are informed and believe and 
upon said information and belief allege that the action of 
said Board in refusing to desegregate the schools within 
its jurisdiction was done pursuant to orders, resolutions 
or directives of the State Board of Education and the 
Superintendent of Public Instruction. On account of the 
matters and things herein set forth, these plaintiffs had to 
employ attorneys and undergo great trouble, inconvenience 
and expenses to litigate a vindication of their constitu­
tional rights.

Complaint



8a

7.
(a) The North Carolina constitutional provisions in­

volved are: (1) Article 9, Section 2, a portion of which 
provides that:

“Children of the white race and the children of the 
colored race shall be taught in separate public schools, 
hut there shall be no discrimination in favor of or to 
the prejudice of either race.”

(2) Article 9, Section 12, which provides:
“Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitu­
tion, the General Assembly may provide for payment 
of education expense grants from any State or local 
public funds for the private education of any child for 
whom no public school is available or for the private 
eduction of a child who is assigned against the wishes 
of his parents or guardian to a public school attended 
by a child of another race. A grant shall be available 
only for education in a nonsectarian school, and in the 
case of a child assigned to a public school attended by 
a child of another race, a grant shall in addition, be 
available only when it is not reasonable and prac­
ticable to reassign such child to a public school not 
attended by a child of another race.

“Notwithstanding any other provision of this Con­
stitution, the General Assembly may provide for a 
uniform system of local option whereby any local op­
tion unit, as defined by the General Assembly, may 
choose by a majority vote of the qualified voters in the 
unit voting on the question to suspend or to authorize 
the suspension of the operation of one or more of the 
public schools in that unit.

Complaint



9a

“No action taken pursuant to the authority of this 
Section shall in any manner affect the obligation of 
the State or any political subdivision or agency there­
of with respect to any indebtedness heretofore or here­
after created.”

(b) That at its 1955 session, the North Carolina Gen­
eral Assembly rewrote Chapter 115 of the General Statutes 
of North Carolina, that Article 21, Chapter 115 of the Gen­
eral Statutes of North Carolina as amended in 1956, pro­
vides for the assignment of pupils in the public school 
system of North Carolina; that on or about the 23rd day 
of July, 1956, the North Carolina General Assembly, in 
special session passed an act amending Chapter 115 of the 
General Statutes by adding Articles 34 and 35 and revising 
Article 20, Section 166. That said Amendments commonly 
known and referred to as the “Pearsall Plan”, authorized 
educational expense grants, local option and to suspend 
operation of public schools, and revised the Compulsory 
School Attendance Laws; that the said acts of the General 
Assembly hereinbefore referred to were ratified by vote of 
the people September 8, 1956; that the said acts of the 
General Assembly hereinbefore referred to have as their 
singular and sole purpose and effect the continuation of 
racial segregation in the public schools of this said State 
by circuitous methods that will abort, modify, nullify or 
defeat the spirit and purpose of the laws of the United 
States.

(c) That the public policy of the State of North Caro­
lina, as declared by the General Assembly by Eesolution 
No. 29 passed on the 8th day of April, 1955 and by Eesolu­
tion of Condemnation and Protest passed in Special Legis­
lative Session, August, 1956, is to continue segregation

Complaint



10a

of the races in public education; that said public policy is 
in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United 
States.

8.

North Carolina constitutional and statutory provisions 
and separation in the public schools accomplished by any 
means whatsoever insofar as it requires children of the 
white race and the children of the colored race shall be 
taught in separate public schools and the custom, practices 
and usages of the Caswell County School officials as ap­
plies to these plaintiffs, by these defendants, deprive plain­
tiffs of equal protection of the laws in violation of the 
Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United 
States.

9.
Plaintiffs and each of them and those similarly situated 

suffer and are threatened with irreparable injury by the 
acts herein complained of. They have no plain, adequate 
or complete remedy to redress these wrongs other than 
this suit for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief 
both temporary and permanent. Any other remedy would 
be attended by such uncertainties and delays as to deny 
substantial relief would involve a multiplicity of suits, 
cause further irreparable injury and occasion damage, 
vexation and inconvenience not only to the plaintiffs and 
those similarly situated, but to defendants as governmental 
agencies.

W herefore , plaintiffs respectfully pray:
(1) That the Court convene a three-judge Court as re­

quired by Title 28, United States Code, Sections 2281 and 
2284.

Complaint



11a

(2) That the Court advance this cause on the docket and 
order a speedy hearing of the application for interlocutory 
injunction and upon such hearings:

(a) The Court enter a temporary injunction or restrain­
ing order enjoining and restraining the defendants and 
each of them, their agents, servants, employees, successors 
in office, attorneys and all persons in concert with them 
who shall receive notice of the order, from enforcing Sec­
tions 2 and 12, Article 9, of the Constitution of North 
Carolina, or Articles 20, 21, 34 and 35, Chapter 115, of the 
General Statutes of North Carolina, against the plaintiffs 
or any of them, or against any member of the class of per­
sons that plaintiffs represent for the reason that sections 
2 and 12, Article 9, of the North Carolina Constitution and 
Articles 20, 21, 34 and 35, Chapter 115 of the General Stat­
utes of North Carolina and racial separation in the schools 
otherwise accomplished deny to plaintiffs and the class of 
persons that they represent their privileges and immuni­
ties, and the equal protection of the laws secured to them 
by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Con­
stitution of the United States and their Civil rights as 
guaranteed to them by Sections 1981 and 1983 of Title 42, 
United States Code, and are for these reasons unconstitu­
tional and void.

(3) That after this cause has been heard on its merits, 
the Court enter a final judgment, order and decree that 
will be declarative of the legal rights and relations of 
plaintiffs and the class of persons that they represent in 
the subject matters in controversy in this action.

(4) That the Court issue interlocutory and permanent 
injunctions ordering defendants to promptly present a plan 
of desegregation to the Court which will expeditiously

Complaint



12a

desegregate the schools in Caswell County and forever re­
straining and enjoining the defendants and each of them 
from thereafter requiring these plaintiffs and all other 
Negroes of public school age to attend public schools in 
Caswell County and the State of North Carolina on a 
segregated basis.

(5) That this Court allow to plaintiffs their costs herein 
and reasonable attorney fees for their counsel and grant 
such other and further relief that may appear just and 
proper in the premises.

Complaint

C. 0. P earson

203% E- Chapel Hill Street 
P. 0. Box 1428 

Durham, North Carolina

W illiam  A. M arsh , J r.
203% E. Chapel Hill Street 

P. 0. Box 125 
Durham, North Carolina

S tate of N orth  Carolina 
C ounty  of Caswell

Personally appeared before me John L. Jeffers, father 
and next friend of Mimia Jeffers and Allene Jeffers, 
minors; Hunter Mitchell and Christine Mitchell, father and 
mother and next friends of Hernalene Mitchell, Curtis 
Mitchell, Zelodis Mitchell and Yeria Mitchell, minors; 
George Mitchell and Ada Mitchell, father and mother and 
next friends of Martha Mitchell, Ada Mitchell, Odel Mitchell 
and Maloy Mitchell, minors; Robert Mitchell and Mande- 
line Mitchell, father and mother and next friends of Ruth



13a

Mitchell, Tony Mitchell and Mae Tresea Mitchell, minors; 
Hubert L. Lee and Ester E. Lee, father and mother and 
next friends of Ullman Lee, Kermit Lee, Leroy Lee, Velma 
Lee and Boston Lee, minors; Willie Coleman and Ola Jane 
Coleman, father and mother and next friends of Alice 
Coleman, Melvin Coleman, Romeda Coleman, George Cole­
man and Roderick Coleman, minors; G. H. Biglow, father 
and next friend of Anil Biglow and Luehaw Biglow, 
minors; John M. Jeffers and Annie L. Jeffers, father and 
mother and next friends of Warren Jeffers, Alexander 
Jeffers, Charlie Jeffers, Sylveen Jeffers, Doris Jeffers, 
Emma Lou Jeffers and Thomas Jeffers, minors; Jasper 
Brown, father and next friend of Nathan Brown, Lunsford 
Brown and Sheliah Brown, minors; Robert Poteat and 
Kattie Poteat, father and mother and next friends of Rob­
ert H. Poteat, Kattie A. Poteat, Willie S. Poteat, Semond
D. Poteat and Laura B. Poteat, minors; C. H. Saunders 
and Willie P. Saunders, father and mother and next friends 
of Charlie Saunders, Jr., Fred Saunders and Meria Saun­
ders, minors; John L. Jeffers, Hunter Mitchell, Christine 
Mitchell, George Mitchell, Ada Mitchell, Robert Mitchell, 
Mandeline Mitchell, Hubert L. Lee, Ester E. Lee, Willie 
Coleman, Ola Jane Coleman, G. H. Biglow, John M. Jeffers, 
Annie L. Jeffers, Jasper Brown, Odessa Brown, Robert 
Poteat, Kattie Poteat, C. H. Saunders, Willie P. Saunders, 
Lillian Brown, Ernest Connley, Lillian Jeffers, and Ola 
Mae Jeffers, who being duly sworn depose and say; That 
they are the plaintiffs in the foregoing action, that they 
have read the foregoing complaint herein; that the same 
is true to their own knowledge except those matters and 
things stated on information and belief and as to those they 
believe it to be true.

Complaint



14a

/ s /  J o h n  L. J effers

John L. Jeffers, father and next friend of Mimia 
Jeffers and Allene Jeffers, minors.

/ s /  H u n ter  M it c h e l l , / s/  Ch r ist in e  M itc h ell  
Hunter Mitchell and Christine Mitchell, father and 
mother and next friends of Hernalene Mitchell, 
Curtis Mitchell, Zelodis Mitchell and Yeria Mit­
chell, minors.

/ s /  George M it c h e l l , / s/  A da M itc h ell

George Mitchell and Ada Mitchell, father and 
mother and next friends of Martha Mitchell, Ada 
Mitchell, Odel Mitchell and Maloy Mitchell, minors.

/ s /  R obert M it c h e l l , / s/  M andeline  M itc h ell  
Robert Mitchell and Mandeline Mitchell, father and 
mother and next friends of Ruth Mitchell, Tony 
Mitchell and Mae Tresea Mitchell, minors.

/ s /  H ubert L. L ee , / s/  E sth er  E . L ee 
Hubert L. Lee and Ester E. Lee, father and mother 
and next friends of Ullman Lee, Kermit Lee, Leroy 
Lee and Velma Lee and Boston Lee, minors.

/ s /  W il l ie  Colem an , / s/  Ola J ane Coleman 
Willie Coleman and Ola Jane Coleman, father and 
mother and next friends of Alice Coleman, Melvin 
Coleman, Romeda Coleman, George Coleman, and 
Roderick Coleman, minors.

/ s /  G. H. B igelow

G. H. Biglow, father and next Friend of Anil 
Biglow and Luchaw Biglow, minors.

Complaint



15a

Complaint

/ s /  J o h n  M. J effers , / s/  A n n ie  L. J effers 
John M. Jeffers and Annie L. Jeffers, father and 
mother and next friends of Warren Jeffers, Alex­
ander Jeffers, Charlie Jeffers, Sylveen Jeffers, 
Doris Jeffers, Emma Lon Jeffers and Thomas 
Jeffers, minors.

/ s /  J asper B rown

Jasper Brown, father and next friend of Nathan 
Brown, Lunsford Brown and Sheliah Brown, 
minors.

,/s/ R obert P oteat, / s/  K attie P oteat 
Robert Poteat and Kattie Poteat, father and 
mother and next friends of Robert IT. Poteat, 
Kattie A. Poteat, Willie S. Poteat, Semond D. 
Poteat and Laura B. Poteat, minors.

/ s /  C. H. S aunders, / s/  W il l ie  P. S aunders 
C. H. Saunders and Willie P. Saunders, father and 
mother and next friends of Charlie Saunders, Jr., 
Fred Saunders and Meria Saunders, minors.

/s /  J o h n  L. J effers  
John L. Jeffers

/ s /  C h r ist in e  M itc h ell  
Christine Mitchell

/ & /  A da M itc h el l  
Ada Mitchell

/ s /  M andeline  M itc h ell  
Mandeline Mitchell

/ s /  E sther  E. L ee 
Ester E. Lee



16a

/ s /  Ola J ane Coleman 
Ola Jane Coleman

/s /  J o h n  M. J effers  
John M. Jeffers

/s /  J asper B rown 
Jasper Brown

/ s /  R obert P oteat 
Robert Poteat

/ s /  C. H. S aunders 
C. H. Saunders

/s /  L illia n  J e ffries  
Lillian Jeffers

/ s /  H u n ter  M itc h ell  
Hunter Mitchell

/ s /  G eorge M itc h ell  
George Mitchell

/ s /  R obert M itc h ell  
Robert Mitchell

/s /  H ubert L. L ee 
Hubert L. Lee

/ s /  W ill ie  C oleman 
Willie Coleman

/ s /  G. H. B igelow

G. H. Biglow
/ s /  A n n ie  L. J effers  

A nn ie  L. J e f fe rs

Complaint



17a

/ s /  Odessa B rown 
Odessa Brown

/ s /  K attie P oteat 
Kattie Poteat

/ s /  W il l ie  P. S aunders 
Willie P. Saunders

/ s /  E arnest Connaly 
Ernest Connley

/s /  Ola M ae J effers  
Ola Mae Jeffers

P la in tiffs

N orth  Carolina 
County  of Caswell

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5 day of Dec., 
1956.

,/s/ L illia n  H. M cL ausin

Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
Sept. 1st, 1957

Complaint

(Seal)



18a

I n  t h e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
M iddle D istrict of N orth  Carolina 

Greensboro D ivision  

Civil Action No. 1079

[ same t it l e ]

Answer of Caswell County Board of Education

A nsw er  by Casw ell County  B oard of E ducation and 
Caswell C ounty  S u per in ten d en t  of S chools

The defendants, David L. Johnson, C. N. Barker, J. A. 
Hodges, N. L. Oliver, and J. C. Wilkerson, members of the 
Caswell County Board of Education, and Thomas H. Whit­
ley, Superintendent of Schools of Caswell County, allege 
and say:

1 .

(a) It is denied that this cause is one for the jurisdiction 
of this court under Title 28, United States Code, Section 
1331. It is denied that there is involved in this cause the 
constitutionality of any provisions of the Constitution or 
statutes of the State of North Carolina, or the acts of any 
person or body, depriving or tending to deprive any of the 
plaintiffs of any right under the Fourteenth Amendment of 
the Constitution of the United States or any right under 
any statute of the United States. It is denied that the 
matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and 
costs, the sum or value of three thousand dollars ($3,000).

(b) It is denied that there is presented a question for 
the jurisdiction of this court under Title 28, United States



19a

Code, Section 1343. It is denied that the plaintiffs, or any 
one of them, have been deprived of any right secured by the 
Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United 
States or any right under any statute of the United States.

(c) It is denied that this cause presents a matter within 
the jurisdiction of this court under Title 28, United States 
Code, Section 2281. It is denied that the plaintiffs, or any 
one of them, have been deprived of any right secured by the 
Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United 
States or any right under any statute of the United States.

(d) It is denied that this cause presents any matter within 
the jurisdiction of this court under Title 28, United States 
Code, Sections 2201 and 2202. It is denied that any question 
is presented concerning the enforcement, execution or opera­
tion of Articles 21, 34 and 35, Chapter 115 of the General 
Statutes of North Carolina or concerning Article 9, Sec­
tions 2 and 12 of the Constitution of the State of North 
Carolina or any other laws of the State or orders or action 
of any officer of the State or officer of Caswell County. It 
is denied that the plaintiffs, or any one of them, have been 
deprived of any right secured by the Fourteenth Amend­
ment of the Constitution of the United States or any right 
under any statute of the United States.

2.

It is admitted that the infant plaintiffs are Negroes, 
citizens of the United States and of the State of North Caro­
lina, and reside in Caswell County, North Carolina. It is 
admitted that the public school records of Caswell County 
indicate that the infant plaintiffs are eligible to attend the 
public schools of Caswell County and in fact do attend the 
public schools of Caswell County. Except as herein ad­
mitted, the allegations of paragraph 2 are denied.

Answer of Caswell County Board of Education



20a

3.
It is admitted that the adult plaintiffs are Negroes, 

citizens of the United States and of the State of North Caro­
lina, and reside in Caswell County, North Carolina. It is 
admitted that the Caswell County school records available 
to the defendants show that the adult plaintiffs are parents 
of the infant plaintiffs. Except as herein admitted, the al­
legations of paragraph 3 are denied.

4.
It is denied that this cause is properly brought as a class 

action and it is denied that the complaint states facts suffi­
cient to bring this cause under Rule 23(a) of the Federal 
Buies of Civil Procedure.

Answer of Caswell County Board of Education

5.
(a) It is admitted that defendant, Thomas H. Whitley, 

is Superintendent of Schools of Caswell County; and that 
David L. Johnson, C. N. Barker, J. A. Hodges, N. L. Oliver 
and J. C. Wilkerson are members of the Board of Education 
of Caswell County. It is admitted that the Board of Educa­
tion of Caswell County has general supervision and con­
trol of all matters pertaining to public schools in Caswell 
County. It is admitted that in the performance of their 
duties the members of the Board of Education of Caswell 
County act pursuant to and by authority of the laws of 
North Carolina. Except as herein admitted, the allega­
tions of paragraph 5(a) are denied.

(b) It is admitted that Charles F. Carroll, Edwin Gill, 
John A. Pritchett, Dallas Herring, A. S. Brower, Charles 
G. Bose, Jr., Charles W. McCrary, Oscar L. Biehardson, B. 
Barton Hayes, J. Gerald Cowan, B. B. Dougherty and



21a

Harold L. Trigg are members of the State Board of Edu­
cation, and are citizens and residents of the State of North 
Carolina. It is admitted that the general supervision and 
administration of the free public school system is vested in 
the State Board of Education. It is admitted that Charles 
F. Carroll is the State Superintendent of Public Instruction 
and is Secretary of the State Board of Education. It is ad­
mitted that the State Superintendent of Public Instruction 
is designated by statute as the administrative head of the 
public school system, but in such capacity he has only 
the authority and duties which are prescribed by statute. 
Except as herein admitted the allegations of paragraph 
5(b) of the complaint are denied.

6.

It is admitted that on August 6, 1956, a written petition 
was presented to the Board of Education of Caswell County, 
purportedly signed by fifteen persons. Said petition was 
designated as being from “Members of the Caswell County 
Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of 
Colored People,” and only one individual, Jasper Brown, 
whose name appears on said petition is listed as a plaintiff 
in this action. The name of no other plaintiff in this action 
appears on that petition. Attached to this answer as Ex­
hibit “A” is a copy of the petition of August 6, 1956, which 
is referred to in the plaintiff’s complaint. On such date 
and at all times thereafter, the Board of Education of Cas­
well County was, and now is, ready and willing to act in 
good faith and in accordance with the terms of the North 
Carolina pupil assignment act in processing and passing 
upon every application made to the board for admission 
to a school or transfer from one school to another. In pass­
ing on any such application, this board is ready and will­

Answer of Caswell County Board of Education



22a

ing and proposes to consider only those elements mentioned 
and set forth in the said North Carolina pupil assignment 
act. The petition submitted to the board on August 6, 1956, 
was not an application for reassignment in accordance with 
the clear requirements of the North Carolina pupil assign­
ment act as construed by the North Carolina Supreme Court 
and as upheld by the federal courts, and the defendant 
school board was under no obligation whatever to reassign 
the plaintiffs to a different public school. These defendants 
are informed by the State Superintendent of Public In­
struction that on or about September 10, 1956, the State 
Superintendent of Public Instruction, Charles F. Carroll, 
received a letter signed by five individuals who listed 
their address as being in Caswell County. Three of the 
names on said letter to the State’s Superintendent of Public 
Instruction are listed as plaintiffs in this action: Hubert L. 
Lee, Hunter Mitchell, and Jasper Brown. The name of no 
other plaintiff in this action appears on said letter of 
September 10, 1956. Attached to this answer as Exhibit 
“B” is a copy of the letter addressed to the State Super­
intendent of Public Instruction and dated September 10, 
1956. Attached to this answer as Exhibit “C” is a copy 
of the answer from the State Superintendent of Public In­
struction, dated September 14, 1956. Except as herein ad­
mitted, the allegations contained in paragraph 6 are denied.

7.
(a) Concerning that portion of Section 2, Article IX of 

the North Carolina Constitution, referred to in paragraph 
7(a) of the complaint, the North Carolina Supreme Court 
had the following to say in an opinion filed 6 June 1956, in 
the case of Constantian v. Anson County, 244 N. C. 221, of 
which case the plaintiffs have, or should have, knowledge:

Answer of Caswell County Board of Education



23a

“Only that portion of the 1875 amendment (Article 9, 
Section 2) which purports to make mandatory the en­
forced separation of the races in the public schools is 
now held violative of the equal protection clause of the 
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States. Otherwise, the mandates of Article IX, 
sections 2 and 3, remain in full force and effect. The 
provisions thereof, absent the mandatory requirement 
of enforced separation, are complete in themselves and 
capable of enforcement. Their separable and inde­
pendent status is manifest. They antedate the 1875 
amendment. They survive the invalidation of the man­
datory requirement of enforced separation contained in 
the 1875 amendment.

“Our deep conviction i s . that the interpretation now 
placed on the Fourteenth Amendment, in relation to 
the right of a state to determine whether children of 
different races are to be taught in the same or separate 
public schools, cannot be reconciled with the intent of 
the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amend­
ment, the actions of the Congress of the United States 
and of state legislators, or the long and consistent 
judicial interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 
However that may be, the Constitution of the United 
States takes precedence over the Constitution of North 
Carolina. Constitution of North Carolina, Article I, 
section 3 and 5; Constitution of the United States, Arti­
cle YI. In the interpretation of the Constitution of 
the United States, the Supreme Court of the United 
States is the final arbiter. Its decision in the Brown 
case is the law of the land and will remain so unless 
reversed or altered by constitutional means. Recog­
nizing fully that its decision is authoritative in this

Answer of Caswell County Board of Education



24a

jurisdiction, any provision of the Constitution or stat­
utes of North Carolina in conflict therewith must be 
deemed invalid.” Constantian v. Anson County, 244 
N. C. 221, 228-29.

(b) It is denied that the amendments to the Constitution 
and statutes of North Carolina, commonly known and re­
ferred to as the “Pearsall Plan,” are in violation of any 
law of the United States; and it is denied that said amend­
ments have as their purpose and effect the continuation of 
racial segregation in the public schools of this State in 
violation of the laws of the United States.

(c) The allegations in paragraph 7(c) of the complaint 
are denied.

Answer of Caswell County Board of Education

8.

The defendants deny that the plaintiffs or any one of 
them have been deprived of the equal protection of the 
laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the 
United States Constitution.

9.
The allegations in paragraph 9 of the complaint are de­

nied.

Further Answer and Defense

F or a further answer and defense to  th e  m a tte rs  a lleg ed  
in  th e  com p la in t, th ese  d e fe n d a n ts  s a y :

That the plaintiffs do not show by their complaint, and 
indeed the plaintiffs have not, exhausted their administra­
tive remedies before the Board of Education of Caswell 
County in accordance with the clear, concise and reason­



25a

able procedures prescribed by North Carolina statutes deal­
ing with assignment of pupils to the public schools, and in 
accordance with the decisions of the United States Court 
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit expressly referring to the 
North Carolina public school assignment statutes. The 
plaintiffs have deliberately ignored and refused to follow the 
administrative procedures prescribed by North Carolina 
law, and the plaintiffs have deliberately ignored and re­
fused to abide by controlling decisions of federal courts, 
including this district court, construing the public school 
assignment statutes of this State.

F oe a second fuether  answer and defense, the defen­
dants say that neither the State Board of Education nor the 
State Superintendent of Public Instruction, has any au­
thority or control whatever over the assignment of pupils 
to the public schools in Caswell County or any other county 
in the State; that the Caswell County Board of Education 
has sole and complete authority over the assignment or re­
assignment of any and all pupils to the public schools in 
Caswell County, subject to any appeal to the superior court 
of Caswell County as provided in Article 21, Chapter 115 
of the North Carolina General Statutes; that the local 
board of education of each school administrative unit has 
the sole and complete authority in the assignment or re­
assignment of pupils to the public schools in each respec­
tive school administrative unit throughout the State; that 
neither the State Board of Education nor the State Super­
intendent of Public Instruction has instructed, ordered or 
told the Caswell County Board of Education what it should 
do with respect to assignment of the plaintiffs or any others 
to the public schools in Caswell County.

Answer of Caswell County Board of Education



26a

F oe a third further answer and defense, the defendants 
say that the plaintiffs present no case whatever for the 
interpretation of Articles 34 and 35, Chapter 115 of the 
North Carolina General Statutes, concerning educational 
expense grants and local option operation of public schools; 
that neither in Caswell County nor in any other county of 
the State has any action been taken, or is about to be taken, 
pursuant to Articles 34 and 35 of Chapter 115; that the 
plaintiffs present no justiciable issue with respect to these 
articles or with respect to what is referred to as the “Pear­
sall Plan.” The plaintiffs do not seek in this action the 
proper protection of their rights as individuals, but are 
simply asking this court to give them an advisory opinion 
concerning the constitutionality of these state statutes, all 
of which is contrary to the settled rules and practices of 
the federal courts.

W herefore , h av in g  fu lly  an sw e red  th e  com p la in t, th e se  
d e fe n d a n ts  p ra y  th a t  th is  ac tio n  be d ism issed , w ith  p r e ju ­
dice, a n d  th a t  th e  costs  be ta x e d  a g a in s t  th e  p la in tif fs .

/ s /  R obert R. B lackwell 
Robert R. Blackwell

/ s /  W illiam T. J oyner 
William T. Joyner

Attorneys for the Board of 
Education of Caswell County 
and the Superintendent of 
Schools of Caswell County.

Answer of Caswell County Board of Education



27a

S tate of N orth  Carolina 
County  of Caswell

David L. Johnson, Chairman of the Caswell County Board 
of Education, and Thomas H. Whitley, Superintendent of 
the Caswell County Board of Education, being duly sworn, 
depose and say that they are two of the defendants in the 
above entitled action and that they have read the foregoing 
answer and know the contents thereof; that the same are 
true of their own personal knowledge except as to matters 
therein stated to be alleged on information and belief and 
as to those matters they believe them to be true.

/ s /  D avid R. J ohnson  
Chairman of the Caswell County 

Board of Education.
/ s /  T homas H . W h it l e y  
Superintendent of the Caswell 

County Board of Education
(Seal)

Sworn to and subscribed before me 
this 14th day of January, 1957.
/ s /  N an Ow en  

Notary Public
My commission expires: August 26,1958

Answer of Caswell County Board of Education



28a

EXHIBIT “A” ANNEXED TO ANSWER 

COPY P e t i t i o n

We, the undersigned members of the Caswell County 
Branch of the National Association for the Advancement 
of Colored People, hereby file this petition supporting peti­
tions previously submitted, to the Caswell County Board of 
Education, by the parents of children of school age entitled 
to attend and attending the public elementary and secondary 
high schools under your jurisdiction. As you undoubtedly 
know, the United States Supreme Court on May 17, 1954, 
ruled that the maintenance of racially segregated public 
schools is a violation of the Constitution of the United 
States and on May 31, 1955, reaffirmed that principle and 
requires “good faith compliance at the earliest practicable 
date” with the Federal Court authorized to determine 
whether local officials are proceeding in good faith.

We, therefore, call upon you to take immediate steps to 
reorganize the public schools under your jurisdiction on 
a non-diseriminatory basis. As we understand it, you have 
the responsibility to reorganize the school systems under 
your control so that the children of public school age at­
tending and entitled to attend public schools cannot be de­
nied admission to any school or be required to attend any 
school solely because of race and color.

The May 31 decision of the Supreme Court, to us, means 
that the time for delay, evasion or procrastination is past. 
Whatever the difficulties in according our children their con­
stitutional rights, it is clear that the school board must meet 
and seek a solution to that question in accordance with the 
law of the land. As we interpret the decision, you are duty 
bound to take immediate concrete steps leading to early



29a

Exhibit “A ”

elimination of segregation in the public schools. Please 
rest assured of our willingness to serve in any way we 
can to aid you in dealing with this question.

/* /
/s /

M
/ S /

N
N
/ S  /

/ s /

/ S /

/ s /

/ s /
/ s /
/ S /

N
/ S /

J ames E . B rown 

P ortee A. Graves 

J asper B rown  

C halm ers G. K ing  

E ugene  J effers  

L u cille  B rown 

L ilia n  W illiamson  

J ames Graves 

B anks  Graves 

Carrie E . Graves 

W illard M ark 

C harles C. B rown 

J e ff  B lackw ell 

M attie G. B lackw ell 

L eroy B lackw ell



30a

EXHIBIT “B” ANNEXED TO ANSWER

C
O
P
Y

Route #1, Box 75-A 
Blanch, North Carolina 
September 10,1956

Mr. Charles F. Carroll
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Raleigh, North Carolina

Dear Mr. Carroll:

On August 6, 1956, the undersigned committee represent­
ing our community, petitioned the Board of Education of 
Caswell County respectfully requesting them to reorganize 
the School system on a non-racial basis and to comply with 
the Supreme Court’s decision.

We were notified today September 10, 1956, that the 
Board has refused our request. We are respectfully re­
questing you to order the Caswell County Board of Educa­
tion to reorganize the School system on a non-racial basis 
and to comply with the United States Supreme Court’s de­
cision and further since you have control of education 
throughout the State of North Carolina, we are respect­
fully requesting you to reorganize the School system on a 
non-racial basis and to comply with the Supreme Courts 
decision.



31a

Exhibit “B ” Annexed to Answer

May we hear from you at your earliest convenience?

Very truly yours,

John L. Jeffries, Chairman 
Route #1, Bos 75-A 
Blanch, North Carolina
Hubert L. Lee
Eugene Jeffers
Hunter Mitchell
Jasper Brown



32a

EXHIBIT “C” ANNEXED TO ANSWER

C
0
P
Y

September 14, 1956

Mr. John L. Jeffries 
Route #1, Box 75-A 
Blanch, North Carolina

Dear Mr. Jeffries:

This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated Sep­
tember 10, signed by you and four other individuals.

Under the public school law of North Carolina, the au­
thority for assigning children to public schools is vested 
solely in local boards of education.

Yours very truly,

CFC :baa

Chas. F. Carroll 
State Superintendent 

Public Instruction



33a

I n  t h e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
M iddle D istrict of N orth  Carolina 

G reensboro D ivision  

Civil Action #1079-G

[ same t it l e ]

Complaint for Supplemental Pleadings

The plaintiffs complaining of the defendants, allege:

1.
That the plaintiffs herein in the above-entitled action 

filed an original complaint in this Court December 10, 
1956, wherein the jurisdiction of this Court was properly 
invoked and responsive pleadings have been filed by the 
said defendants. Further, the jurisdiction of this Court is 
invoked under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Title 28, 
United States Code Annotated, Rule 15d.

2.

That since the filing of the original complaint herein, the 
matters and things and occurrences hereinafter set forth 
have taken place.

3.
That prior to the closing of the Caswell County Public 

Schools for the school year 1956 and 1957, the plaintiffs 
and each of them individually on or about May 1, 1957 
wrote letters to the defendant, School Board of Caswell 
County, protesting the reassignment of their children to



34a

a segregated school system as has heretofore existed in 
said Caswell County and further requested that the school 
board of Caswell County operate the public schools of 
said County on a non-segregated basis. Further, the plain­
tiffs advised the defendant, Caswell County School Board, 
that the request was made at this time so that the plaintiffs 
would have ample time to protect their interests prior to 
the opening of the schools for the school year 1957 and 
1958.

4.
That at the closing of the schools of Caswell County for 

the school year 19o6 and 1957, no assignment of pupils was 
made by the County Board of Education of Caswell County, 
until July 16, 1957, at which time the plaintiffs herein and 
all other Negroes were assigned to schools which had here­
tofore been operated for the exclusive use of Negroes and 
the white school pupils were assigned to schools which had 
heretofore been operated exclusively for white children 
thereby maintaining the same racially segregated school 
system as has heretofore existed in Caswell County.

5.
That on or before ten days after the assignment of 

pupils were made by the County Board of Education of 
Caswell County on July 16, 1957, plaintiffs and each of 
them in their individual capacities filed petitions before 
the Caswell County School Board for the reassignment of 
their children to a non-segregated school and more par­
ticularly for reassignment to a school in the district in 
which they live. These requests were made pursuant to the 
requirements of the Public Laws of North Carolina as set 
forth in North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 115,

Complaint for Supplemental Pleadings



35a

Section 178; that on August 22, 1957, the Caswell County 
School Board in special session denied the plaintiffs and 
each of them their requests for reassignment; that in apt 
time the plaintiffs and each of them applied for a re-hearing 
on their request for reassignment as required by the Public 
Laws of North Carolina as set forth in North Carolina 
General Statutes, Chapter 115, Section 179; that on Sep­
tember 3,1957, the date set for re-hearing on these requests 
for reassignment by the Caswell County School Board, the 
plaintiffs’ requests for reassignment to a non-segregated 
school system in a district in which they lived were again 
denied.

6.

On October 8, 1957, the plaintiffs herein requested Mr. 
Charles F. Carroll, State Superintendent of Public In­
struction and Secretary of the State Board of Education, 
to advise the Caswell County School Board to reassign 
said plaintiffs to schools in districts nearest their home on 
a non-segregated basis; that the said Charles F. Carroll in 
a letter dated October 18, 1957 informed the plaintiffs that 
he had no authority for such request and denied same.

7.

Pursuant to the matters and things hereinbefore set 
forth, the plaintiffs say that they have exhausted all ad­
ministrative remedies as required by the Pupil Assignment 
Law, and more particularly the requirements of North 
Carolina General Statutes 115-178 and 115-179 without hav­
ing obtained the relief sought and that the plaintiffs are 
now entitled to the relief prayed for as contained in their 
original complaint.

Complaint for Supplemental Pleadings



36a

This 20th day of January, 1958.

C. 0. P earson, Attorney 
2031/2 E. Chapel Hill Street 

P. 0. Box 1428 
Durham, N. C.

W illiam  A. M arsh , J r.
203% E. Chapel Hill Street 

P. 0. Box 125 
Durham, N. C.

Complaint for Supplemental Pleadings



37a

I n  t h e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
M iddle D istrict  of N orth  Carolina 

Greensboro D ivision  

Civil Action No. 1079

Answer by Caswell County Board of Education

[ same t it l e ]

A nsw er  by Caswell C ounty  B oard op E ducation and 
Casw ell County  S u per in ten d en t  of S chools to 

“ C om plaint  for S u pplem en ta l  P leadings.”

The defendants, Earl J. Smith, successor in office to 
David L. Johnson, C. N. Barker, J. A. Hodges, N. L. 
Oliver, and J. C. Wilkerson, members of the Caswell County 
Board of Education, and Thomas H. Whitley, Superinten­
dent of Schools of Caswell County, answering the “Com­
plaint for Supplemental Pleadings,” allege and say:

I.
It is admitted that plaintiffs herein filed original Com­

plaint in this Court on December 10, 1956, and that they 
attempted to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court and that 
an Answer has been filed by these defendants. It is ad­
mitted that the plaintiffs herein attempted to invoke the 
jurisdiction of this Court under the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure, Title 28, U. S. Code, Annotated, Rule 
15-D. Except as herein admitted, the allegations of Para­
graph 1 of the Supplemental Complaint are denied.



Answer by Caswell County Board of Education

II.
It is admitted that the allegations of the said Supple­

mental Complaint concern matters which are alleged to 
have occurred subsequent to the filing of the original Com­
plaint on December 10, 1956. Except as herein admitted, 
the allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Supplemental Com­
plaint are denied.

III.
It is admitted that prior to the closing of the Caswell 

County Public Schools for the school year 1956-1957, the 
plaintiffs, on or about May 1, 1957, wrote to the defendant 
School Board of Caswell County, requesting that the School 
Board of Caswell County operate the schools of said 
county on a non-segregated basis. Except as herein ad­
mitted, the allegations of Paragraph 3 of the Supplemental 
Complaint are denied.

IV.
It is admitted that no assignment of any pupils to 

schools in Caswell County for the school year 1957-1958 
was made by the County Board of Education of Caswell 
County until July 16, 1957, at which time the plaintiffs 
herein and all other children, both white and negro, who 
had attended schools in the school year 1956-1957, were 
assigned to the same schools for the school year 1957-1958. 
Except as herein admitted, the allegations of Paragraph 4 
of the Supplemental Complaint are denied.

V.
It is admitted that on or before ten days after the said 

assignment of said plaintiffs to the Public Schools of Cas­



39a

well County, on July 16, 1957, the plaintiffs applied in 
writing to the Board of Education for reassignment of the 
student plaintiffs to another school; that the said request 
for reassignments were on standard forms furnished by the 
Board of Education of Caswell County. That it is admitted 
that the Caswell County Board of Education denied each 
such request for reassignment; that it is admitted that in 
apt time the plaintiffs applied for a hearing on their re­
quest for reassignment, and that September 3, 1957 was 
set as the date for such hearing, and plaintiffs were prop­
erly notified. It is admitted that on such date, September 
3, 1957, the prior assignment of the student plaintiffs were 
not changed. In further answer to the allegations of Para­
graph 5, it is alleged that on said September 3, 1957, at 
the hour and place set for said hearing, the defendants 
were present and were ready and willing to hear the plain­
tiffs, but that neither of the plaintiffs appeared before the 
Board at the time, and place set for the re-hearing, to wit: 
September 3, 1957, and no representative of plaintiffs ap­
peared in person, and that for that reason no hearing was 
held. Except as herein admitted, the allegations of Para­
graph 5 of the Supplemental Complaint are denied.

VI.
These defendants do not have sufficient information to 

form a belief as to the allegations of Paragraph 6 of the 
Supplemental Complaint and, therefore, deny the same.

VII.
The allegations of Paragraph 7 are denied.
In further answer to the allegations of Paragraph 7, 

these defendants allege and say:

Answer by Caswell County Board of Education



40a

That prior to the opening of the school year 1958, and 
following the practice which the defendants had estab­
lished in prior years, and specifically the practice as here­
tofore admitted and alleged in this Answer, the defendants 
on the 17th day of April, 1958, assigned for the 1958-1959 
season all of the student plaintiffs and all other Caswell 
County students, who attended school in the year 1957-1958 
session, to the same schools attended by them in the 1957- 
1958 session; that notice of said assignments were duly 
and properly given to all students and their parents, in­
cluding the plaintiffs; that notwithstanding such assign­
ments and such notice, none of the plaintiffs, within ten 
days after the giving of such notice of assignment, or at 
any time thereafter, or until the present time, has requested 
any re-assignment, as provided by the Statutes of North 
Carolina; that the Public Schools of Caswell County opened 
on the 3rd day of September, 1958; that they are now 
launched on the school year 1958-1959; that each of the 
student plaintiffs is currently attending the school to which 
such plaintiff was assigned, and that no request for re­
assignment has been made in the form and manner pro­
vided by the Statute, by any plaintiff herein, or at all.

W herefore , having fully answered the Supplemental 
Complaint, the defendants pray that this action be dis­
missed with prejudice, and that the costs be taxed against 
the plaintiffs.

Answer by Caswell County Board of Education

R obert R . B lackw ell 
W illiam  T . J oyner

Attorneys for the Board of Caswell 
County and Superintendent of Schools 
of Caswell County

(Duly certified.)



41a

I n  th e

UNITED STATES DISTBICT COUBT 
F oe t h e  M iddle D istrict oe N orth  Carolina 

Greensboro D ivision  

Civil No. 1079-G

Opinion

[ same t it l e ]

C. 0. Pearson and William A. Marsh, Jr., of Durham, North 
Carolina, for Plaintiffs.

Bobert B. Blackwell, of Yaneeyville, North Carolina, and 
William T. Joyner, of Baleigh, North Carolina, for the 
Defendants, Superintendent of Public Schools of Cas­
well County and Caswell County Board of Education.

Malcolm B. Seawell, Attorney General of North Carolina, 
and Balph Moody, Assistant Attorney General of 
North Carolina, for State Board of Education and 
State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

S tanley , District Judge.

This actiojj was commenced on December 10, 1956, by 
twenty-three adult plaintiffs^individually and as parents 
and next friends of'forty-threePninor plaintiffs, on behalf 
of themselves and WlotJjfiTcitizens and residents of Cas­
well County, North Carolina, similarly situated, against 
the Superintendent of Public Schools of Caswell County, 
the individual members of the School Board of Caswell 
County, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction,



42a

and the individual members of the State Board of Edu­
cation.

It is alleged in the complaint that the minor plaintiffs 
are citizens and residents of Caswell County, North Caro­
lina, and eligible to attend the public schools of said county; 
that the Superintendent of Public Schools and members 
of the School Board of Caswell County maintain and gen­
erally supervise the public schools of Casŵ ell County; 
that said schools are being operated on a segregated basis, 
pursuant to the direction and authority of the State Con­
stitution, State Statutes, and State administrative orders 
and legislative policy; that the defendants, State Superin­
tendent of Public Instruction and State Board of Educa­
tion, are charged with the general supervision and 
administration of the public schools of North Carolina; 
that on August 6, 1956, the plaintiffs petitioned the Board 
of Education of Caswell County to abolish segregation in 
the schools of Caswell County, which was refused; that 
on September 10, 1956, the plaintiffs appealed to the State 
Board of Education and the State Superintendent of Public 
Instruction to order the Caswell County Board of Educa­
tion to desegregate the schools within its jurisdiction, 
which was refused; and that at its regular 1955 session 
and at a special session held in 1956, the General Assembly 
of North Carolina amended and rewrote the State Public 
School Laws, which amendments had as their singular and 
sole purpose and effect the continuation of racial segre­
gation in the public schools of this state. The plaintiffs 
pray (1) that a three-judge court be convened, (2) that a 
temporary injunction be entered restraining the defendants 
from enforcing certain provisions of the State Constitu­
tion and General Statutes whereby the plaintiffs are denied 
equal protection of the laws secured to them by the Four­

Opinion



43a

teenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 
and (3) that the court issue interlocutory and pei*manent 
injunctions ordering defendants to promptly present a 
plan of desegregation to the court which will expeditiously 
desegregate the schools of Caswell County.

Thereafter, on January 14, 1957, the members of the 
Caswell County Board of Education and the Superinten­
dent of Schools of Caswell County filed an answer denying 
most of the material allegations of the complaint and as­
serting as an affirmative defense that the plaintiffs had 
not, prior to the institution of the suit, exhausted their 
administrative remedies before the Board of Education of 
Caswell County, in accordance with the procedures pre­
scribed by North Carolina statutes dealing with assign­
ment of pupils to public schools. The answer of said de­
fendants further alleged that neither the State Board of 
Education nor the State Superintendent of Public Instruc­
tion has any authority or control whatever over the assign­
ment of pupils to public schools in Caswell County or any 
other county in the state, and that the Caswell County 
Board of Education has the sole authority over the as­
signment or reassignment of any and all pupils to the 
public schools of Caswell County.

On January 15, 1957, the State Board of Education and 
the State Superintendent of Public Instruction filed an 
answer denying most of the material allegations in the 
complaint, and setting up an affirmative defense that the 
plaintiffs did not, prior to the institution of this action, 
exhaust their administrative remedies before the Board of 
Education of Caswell County in accordance with the pro­
cedures prescribed by the North Carolina statutes dealing 
with assignment of pupils to the public schools. Said de­
fendants further alleged that neither the State Board of

Opinion



44a

Education nor the State Superintendent of Public Instruc­
tion has any authority whatever over assignment of pupils 
in public schools in Caswell or any other county in the 
state, and that the Caswell County Board of Education has 
the sole authority and complete control over the assign­
ment and reassignment of pupils to the public schools in 
Caswell County. As exhibits, said defendants attached to 
their answer a letter addressed to the State Superintendent 
of Public Instruction, dated September 10, 1956, by cer­
tain of the plaintiffs, requesting that he order the Cas­
well County Board of Education to reorganize the Caswell 
County School system on a non-segregated basis, and the 
reply of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, 
dated September 14, 1956, advising that under the public 
school laws of North Carolina the authority for assigning 
children to public schools is vested solely in local boards 
of education.

On February 10, 1958, the plaintiffs filed a motion for 
leave to file a supplemental complaint alleging that the 
plaintiffs and each of them individually on or about May 

• U-J!)5~, wrote letters to the School Board of Caswell 
County protesting the reassignment of their children to a 
segregated school system and requesting that the school 
board operate the public schools of said county on a non- 
segregated basis; that no assignment of pupils was made 
by the School Board of Caswell County until July 16, 1957, 
at which time the plaintiffs were assigned to schools which 
had theretofore been operated for the exclusive use of 
Negroes, and the white pupils were assigned to schools 
that had theretofore been operated exclusively for white 
children; that on July 16, 1957, the plaintiffs filed a peti­
tion with the Caswell County School Board requesting 
reassignment of their children to a non-segregated school;

Opinion



45a

that this request was made pursuant to the requirements 
of Sec. 115-178, General Statutes of North Carolina; that 
on August 22, 1957, the Caswell County School Board 
denied the plaintiffs their request for reassignment; that 
in apt time each of the plaintiffs applied for a rehearing 
on their request for reassignment; that at the time set 
for rehearing, the plaintiffs’ requests for reassignment to 
a non-segregated school were again denied; that on Octo­
ber 8, 1957, the plaintiffs requested the State Superinten­
dent of Public Instruction, who is also the Secretary of 
the State Board of Education, to advise the Caswell County 
School Board to reassign the plaintiffs to schools in dis­
tricts nearest their homes on a non-segregated basis; that 
said Superintendent of Public Instruction, by letter dated 
October 18, 1957, informed the plaintiffs that he had no 
authority over such requests and denied same; that plain­
tiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies as re­
quired by the pupil assignment law, and more particularly 
the requirements of Sec. 115-178 and Sec. 115-179, General 
Statutes of North Carolina, without having obtained the 
relief sought.

On March 17, 1958, the State Board of Education and 
the State Superintendent of Public Instruction filed a mo­
tion to dismiss the action as to said defendants for the 
reason that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which 
relief can be granted, and for the further reason that said 
defendants are not charged with any legal duties under 
the Constitution and laws of the State of North Carolina 
relating to the assignment or reassignment of pupils in 
the public schools of the state. The allegation is further 
made that said action should be dismissed because of a 
misjoinder of parties and causes of action.

Opinion



46a

Oral arguments were thereafter heard on the plaintiffs’ 
motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint, and the 
motion of the defendants, the State Board of Education 
and State Superintendent of Public Instruction, to dismiss 
the action as to them. At the time of oral arguments the 
parties were requested to file briefs setting forth their 
legal contentions, which have now been filed.

The matters presently before the court for determina­
tion are (1) whether the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file 
supplemental complaint should be granted and (2) whether 
the defendants, State Board of Education and State Super­
intendent of Public Instruction, are indispensable and 
necessary parties to this action.

I
W h e t h e r  th e  P l a in t if f s ’ M otion for L eave 
to F ile  S u pplem en ta l  Com plaint  S hould  B e 
Granted.

It is well settled that the plaintiffs must exhaust their 
administrative remedies provided for under the North 
Carolina Assignment and Enrollment of Pupils Act, Sec. 
115-176 through Sec. 115-179, General Statutes of North 
Carolina, before applying to the federal courts for injunc­
tive relief. Carson v. Board of Education of McDowell 
County, Cir. 4, 227 F. 2d 789 (1955), and Carson v. War- 
lick, Cir. 4, 238 F. 2d 724, certiorari denied 353 U. S. 910, 
77 S. Ct. 665, 1 L. Ed. 2d 664. Indeed, it would appear 
that the plaintiffs have recognized their responsibility to 
comply with the provisions of the state law relating to the 
enrollment and assignment of pupils in public schools by 
seeking leave to file a supplemental complaint in which 
it is alleged that they have exhausted their administrative 
remedies.

Opinion



47a

Based oil the allegation in the plaintiffs’ proposed sup­
plemental complaint that plaintiffs “have exhausted all 
administrative remedies, as required by the pupil assign­
ment law, and more particularly the requirements of the 
North Carolina General Statutes 115-178 and 115-179 with­
out having obtained the relief sought,” and without pass­
ing on the question as to whether or not the plaintiffs have 
in fact adequately exhausted their administrative remedies 
under these laws, it is concluded that the plaintiffs’ motion 
for leave to file supplemental complaint should be granted.

II
W h e t h e r  t h e  D efendants , S tate B oard of 
E ducation and S tate S u per in ten d en t  of 
P ublic I nstruction , A re I ndispensable and 
N ecessary P arties to T h is  A ction .

In passing on the question of whether or not the State 
Board of Education and the State Superintendent of Pub­
lic Instruction (hereinafter referred to as the “State Of­
ficials”) are indispensable and necessary parties to this 
action, we must look to the allegations of the original com­
plaint and the proposed supplemental complaint, includ­
ing the nature of relief sought, and the public school laws 
of the State of North Carolina, of which we must take 
judicial notice, to determine if any decree granting the 
relief sought will require the state officials to take action 
by exercising any power lodged in them, or if the relief 
can be effectively granted by a decree operating against 
the Superintendent of Schools of Caswell County and the 
Board of Education of Caswell County (hereinafter re­
ferred to as the “County Officials”). If the relief sought 
can be decreed without requiring the state officials to take

Opinion



48a

positive action under some duty or power conferred upon 
them by state law, it would follow that they are neither 
indispensable nor necessary parties. For a general dis­
cussion of these principles, see Barron and Holtzoff on 
Federal Practice and Procedure, Volume 2, Sections 514 
and 515, and the authorities therein cited.

The primary allegations against the state officials are 
that they are charged with the general supervision and 
administration of the public schools of North Carolina and 
that plaintiffs asked them to issue an order to the county 
officials to desegregate the schools in Caswell County, 
which was refused. In this connection, it must be borne in 
mind that both the county officials and the state officials 
set up in their answer that the state officials have no au­
thority whatever over the assignment of pupils in public 
schools in Caswell County, or any other county in the 
state, and that the county officials have the sole authority 
over the assignment and reassignment of any and all pupils 
to the public schools of Caswell County.

The public school laws of this state are found in Chapter 
115, General Statutes of North Carolina. No attempt will 
be made here to summarize all of these laws. It is suffi­
cient to point out that Section 115-2 vests the general su­
pervision and administration of the free public school 
system in North Carolina in the State Board of Education; 
that Section 115-11 defines the general powers and duties 
of the State Board of Education; that Sections 115-12 
through 115-15 define the general powers and duties of the 
State Superintendent of Public Instruction; that Sections 
115-18 through 115-53 provide for the manner of election 
and the powers and duties of County and City Boards of 
Education; that Sections 115-54 through 115-68 define the 
powers and duties of the Superintendents of City and 
County Schools; and that Sections 115-176 through 115-179

Opinion



49a

relate to the assignment and enrollment of pupils in the 
public schools of this state.

While the state officials are given broad general powers 
over the public school system, specific authority for the 
assignment and enrollment of pupils in all city and county 
administrative units throughout the state is vested solely 
in county and city boards of education. Section 115-176, 
General Statutes of North Carolina, provides, in part, as 
follows:

“Each county and city board of education is hereby 
authorized and directed to provide for the assignment 
to a public school of each child residing within the 
administrative unit who is qualified under the laws of 
this State for admission to a public school. . . . No 
child shall be enrolled in or permitted to attend any 
public school other than the public school to which 
the child has been assigned by the appropriate board 
of education.”

Section 115-177 requires each county and city board, in 
making assignment of pupils, to give individual written 
notice of assignment, either on each pupil’s report card or 
any other feasible means, and Section 115-178 sets up the 
procedure for making applications for reassignment, 
notice of action taken, and hearings before the board. The 
sole authority for proceeding under Section 115-178 is 
vested in local boards.

While the complaint contains general allegations that the 
county officials are denying the plaintiffs their constitu­
tional rights pursuant to direction and authority of state 
statutes, state administrative orders and legislative policy, 
it is nowhere alleged that the state officials have any spe­
cific authority or control over county officials in regard to

Opinion



50a

the enrollment and assignment of pupils. Indeed, it is 
alleged in Paragraph 5(a) of the original complaint that 
the county officials maintain and generally supervise the 
public schools of Caswell County.

After an exhaustive search of the public school laws of 
this state, I fail to find any provision giving the state 
officials any authority or control whatever over local 
school officials relating to the enrollment and assignment 
of pupils in the public schools.

While at its regular session in 1955 and at a special 
session in 1956, the General Assembly of North Carolina 
amended, renumbered, rearranged and rewrote Chapter 
llo  of the General Statutes, which is the basic school law 
of the State, and repealed certain obsolete sections, the 
basic plan of the public school system has not been changed, 
except that local units, which actually administer and con­
trol the system, have been given more authority.

The entire subject was exhaustively treated by Judge 
Johnson J . Hayes in the case of Blue v. Durham Public 
School Dist., 95 F. Supp. 441 (M. D. N. C., 1951). In this 
case, the State Board of Education and the State Superin­
tendent of Public Instruction, having been made parties 
defendant, filed a motion to dismiss on the general ground 
that they had no control over the furnishing of school 
facilities and owed no duties to the plaintiffs. In dismiss­
ing the action against the state officials, Judge Hayes, 
after reviewing the various school laws of North Carolina, 
and the powers vested in state and local officials, said:

“It appears from the foregoing statutes that the 
State officials are given broad general powers over 
the public school system which must be construed in 
connection with statutes which confer specific author­
ity on local officials. The decisions of the North Caro­

Opinion



51a

lina Supreme Court have consistently upheld the 
powers of the local authorities. . . . The mere dis­
cretionary powers of the state officials are not to be 
controlled by injunctive power of the court. It follows 
that the action against the state officials must be dis­
missed.”

To the same general effect is Constantian v. Anson 
County, 224 N. C. 221, 93 S. E. 2d 163 (1956), where the 
Supreme Court of North Carolina said:

“Full responsibility for the administration of school 
affairs and the instruction of children within each 
administrative unit, including the assignment of pupils 
to particular schools, rests upon the school authorities 
of such units.”

The plaintiffs in their brief simply refer to the general 
broad powers given to state officials under the public school 
laws, make reference to a speech made by the Governor 
of North Carolina in 1956 regarding assistance given to 
local school boards by certain state officials in the prepara­
tion of rules and regulations pursuant to the pupil assign­
ment law, and complain that city and county school boards 
are maintaining segregated schools in the furtherance of 
an established state policy, but fail to cite any authority 
in support of their contention that the state officials are 
indispensable and necessary parties to the action.

In passing, it might be well to note that the North Caro­
lina Supreme Court, in Constantian v. Anson County, 
supra, acknowledges that the decisions of the Supreme 
Court in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483, 74 
S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954), and Brown v. Board of 
Education, 349 U. S. 294, 75 S. Ct. 753, 99 L. Ed. 1083 
(1955), are authoritative in this jurisdiction, and that

Opinion



52a

“ ■ ■ • any provision of the Constitution or statutes of 
North Carolina in conflict therewith must be deemed in­
valid.” The Attorney General of the State of North Caro­
lina acknowledges in his brief that local school officials in 
enrolling and assigning pupils to the public schools of 
North Carolina must treat all pupils alike and that “color 
has been abolished as any basis for segregation in the 
public schools of this State.”

If there should be any state laws or constitutional pro­
visions under which the state officials are attempting to 
exercise any authority or control whatever over local school 
boards in the enrollment and assignment of pupils in con­
travention of their constitutional rights, it is too well set­
tled to admit of argument that, as was stated by Judge 
Hayes in Covington v. Montgomery County School Board, 
139 F. Supp. 161 M. D. N. 0. (1956), “ . . . it follows as 
the night the day that, being in conflict with the Constitu­
tion of the United States as defined by the Supreme Court, 
they are to that extent, null and void.”

It is concluded that the state officials have no control or 
authority whatever over the enrollment and assignment 
of pupils in the public schools of North Carolina, and that 
the plaintiffs, if they prevail in this action, are entitled 
to obtain complete relief against the county officials, and 
that this action should be dismissed against the state of­
ficials.

A decree will be entered accordingly.
This 12th day of September, 1958.

Edwin M. Stanley 
United States District Judge

Opinion



53a

Judgment

I n  th e

DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 
F ob t h e  M iddle D istrict oe N orth  Carolina

[ same t it l e ]

The above case came on to be heard before the under­
signed District Judge on March 26, 1958, at which time 
the Court heard arguments of Counsel on the Plaintiffs’ 
Motion to File Supplemental Pleadings or Complaint and 
also upon the Motion of the Defendants, Charles F. Carroll, 
Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the Members of 
the North Carolina State Board of Education, State Offi­
cers, to dismiss this action as to them. The Court having 
considered the arguments of Counsel for both sides and of 
the Attorney General of North Carolina, representing the 
State Officers named as parties defendants, and the Court 
also having considered the Briefs filed by Counsel for all 
parties in this action, and having entered an Opinion in this 
cause under date of September 12,1958, and having directed 
that a Judgment be entered in conformity with said Opin­
ion:

I t is  fu r th er  ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court 
Court, in accordance with said Opinion heretofore entered 
by the Court, that this action as to the Defendants, State 
Officers, the same being Charles F. Carroll, Superintendent 
of Public Instruction, and Edwin Gill, et ah, Members of 
the North Carolina State Board of Education, be, and the 
same is hereby dismissed, and that as to these Defendants, 
State Officers, any Motion to File Supplemental Pleadings



54a

Judgment

as against them is hereby dismissed, and the prayer of the 
Plaintiffs for relief as against said State Officers, above 
named, be, and the same is hereby, denied.

I t is fu r th er  ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court 
that the Motion to File Supplemental Pleadings as to the 
Defendants, Thomas H. Whitley, Superintendent of the 
Public Schools of Caswell County, and David L. Johnson, 
et al., Members of the Caswell County School Board, be, 
and the same is hereby, allowed, and said Supplemental 
Pleadings, or Complaint, are directed to be filed, and this 
cause, as to the County School Board of Caswell County 
and the County Superintendent of Public Schools, is re­
tained for trial. It further appearing to the Court that the 
Superintendent of Public Schools of Caswell County and 
the Members of the Caswell County School Board have al­
ready filed Answer to the Supplemental Complaint, or 
Pleadings herein allowed, the Court, therefore, enters no 
Order as to the time in which Answer shall be filed.

I t is  fu r th er  ordered, adjudged and decreed that as be­
tween the Plaintiffs and the State Officers in whose behalf 
Motion to Dismiss has been sustained and allowed, parties 
will bear their own costs of Court incurred herein.

This 26 day of September, 1958.

Judge of the District Court of the 
United States for the Middle District 

of North Carolina.



55a

Stipulations (September, 1959)

I n  t h e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
M iddle D istrict of N orth  Carolina 

Greensboro D ivision

[ same t it l e ]

In the above entitled action, now pending in the District 
Court of the United States for the Middle District of North 
Carolina, Greensboro Division, it is stipulated by and be­
tween counsel for the plaintiffs and counsel for the defen­
dants as follows:

1. That these stipulations are made subject to all rights 
of counsel for the plaintiffs and counsel for the defendants 
to make any and all objections and exceptions as to the use 
of same in any trial and subject to the rights of counsel 
for the plaintiffs and counsel for the defendants to use 
any and all lawful reasons, or rules of law, against the use 
of any said stipulation in the trial of this action and like­
wise, to make the same objections and exceptions and give 
any lawful rules or reasons against the use of any said 
stijiulation in any appellant Courts in which this action 
may be reviewed by means of appeals, petition for cer­
tiorari or any other procedure for review.

2. That this action was instituted in this Court on the 
10th day of December, 1956, and supplemental pleadings 
filed on the 12th day of September, 1958, and process there­
after duly served on the defendants.



56a

3. That the Caswell County Board of Education exer­
cises such powers and duties as were conferred upon it by 
Chapter 115 of the General Statutes of North Carolina.

4. That the Caswell County Board of Education operates 
in Caswell County fifteen schools, normally, approximately 
6,000 pupils are enrolled in the Caswell County Schools, ap­
proximately 53% of whom are Negro and 47% of whom are 
whites.

—

5. That the Caswell County Board of Education operates 
one consolidated elementary and high school, attended ex­
clusively by Negro pupils and five elementary schools at­
tended exclusively by Negro pupils; the said Board, operates 
four consolidated elementary and high schools, attended 
exclusively by white pupils and five elementary schools 
attended exclusively by white pupils.

6. That all of the plaintiffs herein who have not moved 
out of Caswell County or who have not dropped out or 
graduated from the Caswell County school system are 
colored students and citizens and residents of Caswell 
County and reside with their parents or guardians within 
the Caswell County Administrative Unit, and for the school 
years 1956-57, 1957-58 and 1958-59, have been enrolled in 
schools attended only by Negro pupils in the Caswell County 
Administrative unit.

7. The minutes of the Board of Education under date 
of September 5, 1955, disclosed that a petition was before 
the Board, the nature of which and the consideration there­
of are shown by Board minutes attached hereto as Ex­
hibit No. 1.

Stipulations (September, 1959)



57a

Stipulations (September, 1959)

8. That the plaintiffs, on July 1, 1957, requested in­
formation concerning pupil assignments as shown by copy 
of the board minutes attached hereto as Exhibit No. 2.

9. That the Caswell County Board of Education, at a 
regular meeting, July 16, 1957, duly made assignments of 
pupils to the Caswell County Schools for the school year 
1957-58; and that Negro pupils were assigned to schools 
previously attended by all Negro pupils; and white students 
were assigned to schools previously attended by all white 
pupils; that the Negro children were assigned to schools 
nearest their residences which were previously attended by 
Negro pupils only; that white students were assigned to 
schools nearest their residences which were previously 
attended by white pupils only. (See Exhibit No. 3 attached, 
hereto.) -----

10. That on the 18th day of July, 1957, the first notice 
of assignments was published in a local paper in Caswell 
County; that on the 25th day of July, 1957, the second 
notice of assignments was duly published in a local paper 
in Caswell County.

11. That on August 5, 1957, the plaintiffs petitioned the 
Caswell County Board of Education for reassignment as 
shown by Exhibit No. 4 and further, as shown by Exhibits 
4(1) to 4(43). [Application Forms are not reprinted in this 
Appendix.]

12. That on August 22, 1957, in a regular meeting of 
the Caswell County Board of Education, the plaintiffs’ ap­
plications for reassignment were denied as shown by copy 
of the board minutes attached hereto as Exhibit No. 5.



58a

13. That on August 26, 1957, the Caswell County Board 
of Education requested private conferences with the minor 
plaintiffs herein as shown by the board minutes attached 
hereto as Exhibit No. 6.

14. That the following Exhibit attached hereto indicates 
the travel distances of some of the plaintiffs to various 
schools in Caswell County. (See Exhibit No. 7.)

15. That on August 28, 1957, more petitions by some 
of the plaintiffs for reassignment were denied. The denial 
having been given by proper notice from the Board to the 
plaintiffs involved. (See school board minutes attached 
hereto as Exhibit No. 8.)

16. That procedures by plaintiffs and defendants relative 
to appeals from reassignment which were denied August, 
1957, are shown by Exhibit No. 9 and 9(1) to 9(35), and 
Exhibits No. 10,11, 12, 13, and 14 attached hereto. [Appeal 
Forms are not reprinted in this Appendix.]

17. That there has been no school in Caswell County I 
since May 17, 1954, in which there were both Negro and 1 
white children.

18. That on the 26th day of July, 1955, at a regular 
meeting of the Caswell County Board of Education, said 
board assigned Negro children to schools previously at­
tended by Negro pupils only, and white pupils to schools 
previously attended by white pupils only for the school year 
1955-56. (See school board minutes attached hereto as Ex­
hibit No. 15.) [Exh. No. 15 not reprinted in this Appendix.] j

19. That on August 6, 1956, at a regular meeting of the \  
Caswell County Board of Education, said board assigned \

Stipulations (September, 1959)



59a

Negro children to schools previously attended by Negro 
pupils only, the white pupils to schools previously attended 
by white pupils only for the school year 1956-57. (See school 
board minutes attached hereto as Exhibit No. 16.) [Exli. 
No. 16 not reprinted in this Appendix.]

20. That on July 16, 1957, at a regular meeting of the 
Caswell County Board of Education, said board assigned 
Negro children to schools previously attended by Negro 
pupils only, and white pupils to schools previously attended 
by white pupils only for the school year 1957-58. (See 
school board minutes attached hereto as Exhibit No. 17.) 
[Exh. No. 17 not reprinted in this Appendix.]

*  *  #  # *

This 24th day of September, 1959.
* * * # =»

Stipulations (S ep tem b er ,  1959)



60a

EXHIBITS ANNEXED TO STIPULATIONS 
(SEPTEMBER, 1959)

E x h ib it  # 1

Yanceyville, North Carolina
September 5, 1955 

* * * # #
The Board received a paper termed “Petition”, which had 
been handed to the superintendent previously, and which 
appears in its entirety below along with names of those 
signing same:

“We, the undersigned, are the parents of children of 
school age entitled to attend and attending the public 
elementary and secondary high schools under your 
jurisdiction. As you undoubtedly know, the United 
States Supreme Court on May 17, 1954, ruled that 
the maintenance of racially segregated public schools 
is a violation of the Constitution of the United States 
and on May 31, 1955 reaffirmed that principle and 
requires ‘good faith compliance at the earliest prac­
ticable date’ with the federal courts authorized to 
determine whether local officials are proceeding in good 
faith.

We, therefore, call upon you to take immediate steps 
to reorganize the public schools under your jurisdiction 
on a non-discriminatory basis. As we understand it, 
you have the responsibility to reorganize the school 
systems under your control so that the children of 
public school age attending and entitled to attend 
public schools cannot be denied admission to any school 
or be required to attend any school solely because of 
race and color.



61a

Exhibits Annexed to Stipulations (September, 1959)

The May 31 decision of the Supreme Court, to us, 
means that the time for delay, evasion or procrastina­
tion is past. Whatever the difficulties in according our 
children their constitutional rights, it is clear that the 
school board must meet and seek a solution to that 
question in accordance with the law of the land. As 
we interpret the decision you are duty bound to take 
immediate concrete steps leading to early elimination 
of segregation in the public schools. Please rest as­
sured of our willingness to serve in any way we can 
to aid you in dealing with this question.

Parents
Ineslia Jefferies 
John L. Lipscomb 
E. C. Jones, Jr. 
Herbert McCain 
Fannie L. Lea 
Lewis W. Graves 
Helen M. Little 
Ralph Stanfield 
Dallas R. Corbett 
Charles C. Brown 
Calvin E. Pinnis 
Percy A. Graves 
Clayborn Brown 
John Watlington 
Jasper Brown

Address
R-l, Box 227, Blanche, N. C.
R-l, Box 106, Blanche, N. C.
R-l, Box 136A, Milton, N. C. 
Milton, N. C.
R-l, Box 2, Blanche, N. C.
R-l, Box 105, Yanceyville, N. C. 
Box 241, Yancey ville, N. C.
R-3, Box 94, Mebane, N. C.
R-l, Box 245, Reidsville, N. C. 
R-l, Box 172, Elon College, N. C. 
R-l, Box 321, Reidsville, N. C. 
R-l, Box 237, Reidsville, N. C. 
R-l, Box 271, Reidsville, N. C. 
R-2, Elon College, N. C.
R-l, Blanche, N. C.

Board action consisted of taking under advisement the 
foregoing paper and in affirming its desire to operate the 
Caswell County Schools in accordance with the law and 
for the benefit of all of the children of all the races.

* #



62a

Yanceyville, North Carolina 
July 1,1957

W  TP W W  TP

The Board received a delegation of colored patrons re­
questing information concerning pupil assignment. This 
delegation was informed that the Board had on its agenda 
later in the day a discussion of the pupil assignment and 
that the Board was studying the latest figures on con­
solidation of the High Rock School, along with revised 
bus routing and the consequent effect on pupil assignment.

E x h ib it  # 3
Yancey ville, North Carolina 
July 16,1957

"X* •if1 ^

The Board discussed pupil assignment for the 1957-’58 
school term and observed from conversations from people 
of both races thruout the county concerning same that the 
assignment outlined below would be for the best interest 
of all the children of all the people. Upon motion by 
Barker, second by Oliver, and unanimous passage by the 
members present the Board directed the Secretary to have 
published for two consecutive publications the following 
pupil assignment for the term 1957-1958:

Each individual pupil is hereby assigned for the 1957- 
1958 school term to that school in which he was en­
rolled at the end of the 1956-1957 term, except as 
provided below:
1. Each pupil completing requirements for graduation 

and receiving either certificate or diploma has no 
assignment.

Exhibits Annexed to Stipulations (September, 1959)

E x h ib it  # 2



63a

2. Each pupil registering on Beginners’ Day is hereby 
assigned to that school at which such registration 
took place.

3. Each pupil attending school at Hamer, Beulah, Wil­
liamson, Omwood, Pleasant Grove, and Leasburg 
is hereby assigned to Highrock.

4. Each pupil completing the work offered at feeder 
schools is hereby assigned from and to respective 
schools as listed below:
A. Archibald Murphey to Bartlett Yancey

(1) Solomon Lea to Bartlett Yancey
B. Sweet Gum to Caswell County Trailing School

(1) Stoney Creek to Caswell County Trailing 
School

(2) Jones to Caswell County Training School
(3) New Dotmond to Caswell County Training 

School
C. Providence to Cobb Memorial 

(1) Pelham to Cobb Memorial
D. Cherry Grove to Anderson

5. Each pupil affected by recommendations made by 
Mr. D. J. Dark, Bus Route Supervisor of the State 
Board of Education, for transfer to facilitate con­
solidation is hereby assigned in accordance with 
said recommendations of Mr. Dark.
A. Except the Fultz quads previously assigned to 

Caswell County Training School are hereby re­
assigned to same.

Any pupil not included in provisions above is to be 
assigned by Board thru application handled by in-

Exhibits Annexed to Stipulations (September, 1959)



64a

dividual principal as heretofore, except in such situa­
tion as Board may decide calls for special attention.

E x h ib it

Yanceyville, North Carolina 
August 5,1957

-52."TV* "A" "VV VT -ft*

Forty-three applications for change of pupil assignment 
were presented to the Board as received by the Super­
intendent on July 24, 1957. All of the said applications 
were handed to the Superintendent by John L. Jeffers, 
R-l, Box 75-A, Blanch, N. C. Said applications were taken 
under advisement by the Board for study, thus deferring 

| any action for the time being.
# # # = » #

E x h ib it  # 5
Yanceyville, North Carolina 
August 22,1957

Exhibits Annexed to Stipulations (September, 1959)

The Board examined applications for change of pupil as­
signment and after thorough consideration of each indi­
vidual pupil’s circumstances rejected the following appli­
cations, upon motion by Oliver, second by "Wilkinson and 
unanimous passage:

# # * * #
Parents—- 

John M. Jeffers 
Annie L. Jeffers

Pupils—•
Charlie James Jeffers 
Alexander M. Jeffers 
Artie Alfonza Williams 
Thomas W. Jeffers 
Doris Anne Jeffers

John L. Jeffers Allean Jeffers
Lillian Jeffers



65a

E x h ib i ts  A nn exed  to S tipu la tion s  (S ep tem b er ,  1959)

John M. Jeffers, Jr. 
Annie Mae Jeffers

Marchell Jeffers 
Bonova Jeffers

Eddie J. Jefferies 
Hand D. Jefferies

Willie Royal Coleman 
Ola Jane Coleman
Robert Poteat 
Minerva Poteat
Willie D. Allen 
Poncie J. Allen
Hubert Lee 
Esther Lee
Hunter Mitchell 
Christine Mitchell

Guardian—
Mary R. Harris
Charlie H. Saunders 
Willie P. Saunders

* =» *

Walter James Jeffers 
Truman Jeffers 
Felix John Jeffers 
Roy Acuff Jeffers
Floyd Jeffers 
Marchell Jeffers, Jr.
Katie Anne Jeffers 
Joseph Lee Jefferies 
Fred Henry Jefferies 
Mary Elizabeth Jefferies

Romenda Coleman 
Melvin Coleman
Semond Daisy Poteat 
Laura Brenda Poteat
Van Donnell Allen

Ullman Lysander Lee 
Kermit Larue Lee
Veronica Hernaline Mitchell 
Vera Lee Mitchell 
Zelodis McCoy Mitchell 
Varanza Curtis Mitchell

Patsy Ann Coleman
Charlie Saunders, Jr.
Fred Macullan Saunders 
Ruby Lea Saunders 
Marie Ann Saunders 

# #



66a

Yanceyville, North Carolina
August 26,1957

The Caswell County Board of Education met in special 
session Monday night August 26, 1957 at 7:30 o’clock in 
the Board room of the Administration Building. Board 
members present were David R. Johnson, Chairman, N. L. 
Oliver, J. C. Wilkinson, C. N. Barker and J. A. Hodges. 
Robert R. Blackwell, Board Attorney, and Erwin Stephens, 
local editor, sat in on the meeting.

The purpose of the meeting was to interview Mr. and Mrs. 
Earnest Connally and their children, Daisy Mae, Helen 
Marie, Charlie Lewis, Annie Delois, and Ester Lee, for 
whom said parents had made request for change in pupil 
assignment. These children had been assigned to the New 
Dotmond School in accordance with recommendation for 
school bus routing made by D. J. Dark of the State Board 
of Education. Their grade placement at New Dotmond 
was tentatively set from their records at the abandoned 
Osmond School and as stated on their respective applica­
tion blanks as follows: Daisy Mae—6, Helen Marie—1, 
Charlie Lewis—3, Annie Delois—8, Ester Lee—6.
Mr. and Mrs. Connally stated that their main reason for 
requesting transfer was that the children had to ride the 
school bus too far, that they would have to ride at least 
8 miles if they went to Highrock or possibly 10 miles if 
they went to New Dotmond. They said they would ride only 
6 miles to Solomon Lea. They said the bus during the 
previous year had passed their home at 7 :00 a.m. and that 
they would have to get the children up at 5:00 a.m. to 
catch the bus going to Highrock or New Dotmond.

Exhibits Annexed to Stipulations (September, 1959)

E x h ibit



67a

Mr. and Mrs. Connally objected to the Board’s request to 
talk with the children privately. They said they expected 
to tell their children what to do and that they did not 
want to consider any choice in the matter the children 
might have. They said they had not asked the children 
where they wanted to go not did they intend to ask them. 
After Mr. and Mrs. Connally and said children were dis­
missed from the hearing the Board discussed all informa­
tion available from the interview and applications and 
other information gathered by the Superintendent, the 
colored Supervisor, and Principals of Highrock and New 
Dotmond Schools. The Board then deferred further action 
but directed the Superintendent in the meantime to deter­
mine the distances the above named children along with 
the Willie R. Coleman children and the Hubert L. Lee 
children whose applications would be considered next would 
have to ride if assigned to Solomon Lea School compared 
to distances they would ride to the New Dotmond School 
to which assignment had been made.
In other action Sam Bason discussed cancellation of exist­
ing blanket coverage and specific insurance on certain 
buildings in order that a new blanket policy might be pre­
pared as of August 26, 1957 for a five year period on the 
premium payment plan. The Board approved this proposal 
and delegated responsibility for working out the details 
to the Superintendent.
There being no further business the Board adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,
/s /  T homas H. W h itley

Thomas H. Whitley, Secretary
/ s /  D avid R. J ohnson

David R. Johnson, Chairman

Exhibits Annexed to Stipulations (September, 1959)



68a

Yanceyville, North Carolina 
August 27,1957

The Caswell County Board of Education met in special 
session Tuesday night August 27, 1957 at 7 :30 o’clock to 
consider requests for transfer of pupil assignments of Mr. 
and Mrs. Willie R. Coleman for their children George 
Edward and Roderick Earl who had been assigned to New 
Dotmond in the 7th and 8th grades respectively.
Members present were David R. Johnson, Chairman, J. C. 
Wilkinson, N. L. Oliver, C. N. Barker and J. A. Hodges. 
Robert R. Blackwell, Board Attorney, and Erwin Stephens, 
local editor, sat in the meeting.
The Board approved the minutes of August 27, 1957 as 
received thru the mail by the members.
Mr. and Mrs. Willie R. Coleman and children, George 
Edward and Roderick Earl, appeared before the Board and 
Mr. Coleman spoke for the family to questions from the 
Board. He objected to the Board’s talking privately with 
the children. He stated he thought his children would be 
better off at Solomon Lea than at Highrock or New Dot­
mond. He stated that the bus route from his home to 
Solomon Lea would be as long or longer than the bus route 
to New Dotmond but that he had not measured any dis­
tance except to Highrock and that was in his car. He did 
not know how the bus route would run. He stated that he 
felt if his boy made a grade of 80 at Osmond he would make 
grades of 80 at Solomon Lea. He would submit to achieve­
ment tests only if required by law, also physical and health 
examinations only if required. Mr. and Mrs. Coleman were

Exhibits Annexed to Stipulations (September, 1959)

E x h ib it  7



69a

. asked to get some parp,nls_Qf pupils now enrolled at. Solomon 
Lea School to recommend to the Board that the Coleman 
children be assigned to Solomon Lea. They said their chil­
dren had played with children now enrolled at Solomon 
Lea when the latter lived near them but that the latter had 
moved away since that time.
This type of discussion continued for approximately an 
hour and one-half. Then the Board dismissed Mr. and Mrs. 
Coleman and children after expressing appreciation to them 
for the interview and assuring them that the Board in­
tended to do what it considered for the best welfare of 
their individual children.
There being no further business the Board adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

/ s /  T homas H. W h itley

Thomas H. Whitley, Secretary

, / s /  D avid R. J ohnson

David R. Johnson, Chairman

Exhibits Annexed to Stipulations (September, 1959)



70a

Yancey ville, North Carolina 
August 28,1957

The Caswell County Board of Education met in special 
session Wednesday night August 28, 1957 at 7 :30 in the 
Board room of the Administration Building to consider the 
request for change of pupil assignment made by Mr. and 
Mrs. Hubert L. Lee for their children, Velma Veronical, 
Boston Green, Harold Delaney and Leroy Shadwiek, who 
had been assigned to New Dotmond in the 5th, 4th, 8th, 
and 7th grades respectively.
Board members present were David B. Johnson, Chairman, 
J. C. Wilkinson, C. N. Barker, J. A. Hodges, and N. L. 
Oliver. Robert R. Blackwell, Board Attorney, and Erwin 
Stephens, local editor, sat in on the meeting.
Mr. and Mrs. Hubert Lee and children as listed above 
appeared before the Board for interview as scheduled. Mr. 
Lee indicated Ms applications were for Solomon Lea School 
because this school has estimation is better equipped and 
nearer than New Dotmond. He said his children would be 
satisfied to ride the school bus with white children and sit 
in classes with white children. He explained that he stood 
for integration even if he must sacrifice a child. Mrs. 
Lee said she wanted her children to go to Solomon Lea 
School even if they should be in danger and be injured. 
Mr. and Mrs. Lee objected to the Board’s talking privately 
with their children. These questions and answers indicate 
the gist of the conference which lasted some one and one- 
half hours during which time Mr. Lee told the Board among 
other things that they should have taken the advice of Mr. 
James E. Brown sometime ago in his offer to represent

Exhibits Annexed to Stipulations (September, 1959)

E x h ib it  8



71a

colored people and advise with the Board on the organiza­
tion and operation of the school system.
At this point Mr. and Mrs. Lee and children were dismissed 
and the Board considered deliberately and at length all in­
formation available from the conferences and other sources 
gathered from the August 22, 26, 27 and 28 meetings.
In accordance with the Board’s directions in the August 
26th meeting that the Superintendent determine distances 
the Hubert L. Lee children, Earnest Connally children, and 
Willie R. Coleman children would ride the school bus if 
assigned to Solomon Lea School as compared with dis­
tances they would ride to the New Dotmond School to 
which assignment has been made, the following report is 
made:

On Thursday August 27, 1957 the Superintendent and 
transportation foreman traveled roads to the respec­
tive residences and schools referred to above and de­
termined by speedometer readings the information re­
corded below:
Distances children would travel by school bus—

Exhibits Annexed to Stipulations (September, 1959)

Solomon Lea School
Hubert L. Lee Children ... 
Earnest Connally

....12.4 Mi. each way—24.8 daily

Children ......................
Willie B. Coleman

....11.1 66 66 “ —22.2 “

Children ...................... ....10.7 66 66 “ —21.4 “

New Dotmond School
Hubert L. Lee Children .......  9.3 Mi. each way—18.6 daily
Earnest Connally

Children ...... ...............
Willie Br. Coleman

.... 8.0 66 66 “ —16 “

Children ...................... .... 7.5 66 66 “ —15 “



72a

I n  th e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
M iddle D istrict of N orth  Carolina 

Greensboro D ivision

Stipulations (December, 1959)

[ same t it l e ]

In tlie above entitled action, now pending in the District 
Court of the United States, for the Middle District of North 
Carolina, Greensboro Division, it is Stipulated by Counsel 
for the Plaintiffs and Counsel for the Defendant as follows:

I.

That on October 27, 1959, it was stipulated that the 
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs were to submit the names and 
addresses of all plaintiffs still interested in the above cap­
tioned case to the Attorney for the defendants on or before 
March 1,1960.

II.
That the Caswell County School Board was to notify all 

interested parties as submitted by the Attorney for the 
Plaintiffs as to the school to which said plaintiffs were to 
be assigned for the 1960-1961 school year, by notation on 
said plaintiffs’ report cards; this notification to be in addi­
tion to the usual notification made for the students of 
Caswell County.



73a

III.
That when the plaintiffs are notified of their assignments 

on their report cards and express in apt time a desire for 
reassignment, the Caswell County Board of Education will 
within ten days from the notification of the plaintiffs’ re­
quests for reassignment hold a hearing on said requests 
for the purpose of granting reassignments or denying the 
requests for reassignment; that in the event the plaintiffs’ 
requests, if made, for reassignment are denied and said 
plaintiffs appeal and request a hearing on the Board’s 
refusal to reassign said plaintiffs, the Board shall, within 
ten days from the request for a hearing, grant said hearing 
and act on the plaintiffs’ appeals within ten days after said 
hearing.

Respectfully submitted,

C. 0. P earson 
Attorney at Law 

2031/2 East Chapel Hill Street 
Durham, North Carolina

W illiam  A. M arsh , J r.
Attorney at Law 

203% East Chapel Hill Street 
Durham, North Carolina

Counsel for Plaintiffs

R obert R. B lackwell 
Attorney at Law 

Yanceyville, North Carolina
Counsel for Defendants

Stipu la tion s  (D ecem ber , 1959)



74a

I n  the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
M iddle D istrict of N orth Carolina 

Greensboro D ivision

Complaint for Supplemental Pleadings

[ same title]

The plaintiffs, complaining of the defendants, allege:

1.
That the plaintiffs herein in the above-entitled action 

filed an original complaint in this Court December 10, 1956, 
and a complaint for supplemental pleadings January 20, 
1958, wherein the jurisdiction of this Court was properly 
invoked and responsive pleadings have been filed by the 
said defendants. Further, the jurisdiction of this Court is 
invoked under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Title 28, 
United States Code Annotated, Rule 15(d).

2.

That since the filing of the original complaint herein and 
the complaint for supplemental pleadings, the matters and 
things and occurrences hereinafter set forth have taken 
place.

3.
That at the close of the 1959-60 school year, the Caswell 

County School Board assigned the following minor plain­
tiffs to schools previously designated as Negro schools and



75a

indeed to schools attended exclusively by Negro children 
of school age in Caswell County:

Maloy Mitchell, Odell Mitchell, Alexander Jeffers, Charlie 
James Jeffers, Sylveen Jeffers, Fred Saunders, Marie Ann 
Saunders, Charlie Saunders, Jr., Ruby Lee Saunders, Edna 
Pearl Saunders, Nathan Brown, Lunceford Brown, Sheliah 
Brown, Joshland Brown, Hernalene Mitchell, Curtis Mitch­
ell, Zelodis Mitchell, Vera Mitchell and Reginald Mitchell.

4.
That in apt time on June 9, 1960, the adult plaintiffs 

parents or guardians of the above named plaintiffs peti­
tioned the Caswell County School Board to reassign these 
minor Negro plaintiffs to schools nearest their homes on 
a non-segregated basis and also to be assigned to a non- 
segregated school system.

Complaint for Supplemental Pleadings

5.
That on June 17, 1960, in a regular meeting of the 

Caswell County Board of Education, the defendant herein, 
denied the plaintiffs’ petition for reassignment mentioned 
in paragraph two of this supplemental complaint; said 
notice of the denial having been sent these plaintiffs on or 
about June 20,1960.

6.

That in apt time, the adult plaintiffs parents or guardians 
of the minor plaintiffs herein named, on June 24, 1960, 
appealed from the decision of the Caswell County School 
Board which decision was to the effect of failing to reassign 
these plaintiffs as requested in their petition for reassign­
ment.



76a

7.
That on July 6, 1960, the Caswell County School Board 

granted a hearing on the appeal of the plaintiffs, as here­
inbefore set forth, and present at said hearing were: Jasper 
Brown and wife, Odessa Brown, adult plaintiffs and parents 
and guardians of Nathan Brown, Lunceford Brown and 
Sheliah Brown, minor plaintiffs herein; George Mitchell 
and wife, Ada Mitchell, adult plaintiffs herein and parents 
and guardians of Maloy Mitchell and Odell Mitchell, minor 
plaintiffs herein, and C. 0. Pearson, their counsel of record 
herein, who read an individual memorandum for each par­
ent and their child or children who are plaintiffs herein and 
the same memorandum was read as to John M. Jeffers, 
adult plaintiff herein and parent or guardian of Alexander 
Jeffers, Charlie Jeffers, and Sylveen Jeffers, minor plain­
tiffs herein; that the Caswell County Board of Education, 
after hearing these appeals for their refusal to reassign 
these plaintiffs as hereinbefore set forth, again denied these 
plaintiffs’ request for reassignment as set forth in their 
petitions of June 9, 1960, solely because of race and color.

8.

That on July 15, 1960, a hearing wTas held by the Caswell 
County Board of Education on the appeals of Charlie H. 
Saunders, adult plaintiff and parent or guardian of Fred 
Saunders and Charlie H. Saunders, Jr., minor plaintiffs 
herein; that said appeal was in writing and read by William 
A. Marsh, Jr., attorney of record, to the board in the pres­
ence of the full board and Charlie H. Saunders, adult plain­
tiff who was also present; that after the hearing on the 
appeal of Charlie H. Saunders, adult plaintiff and parent 
or guardian of Fred Saunders and Charlie H. Saunders, 
Jr., minor plaintiffs herein, the Caswell County School

Complaint for Supplemental Pleadings



77a

Board again denied the petition for reassignment filed by 
the adult plaintiff June 9, 1960, solely because of race and 
color.

9.
Pursuant to the matters and things hereinbefore set 

forth, the plaintiffs say that they have exhausted all ad­
ministrative remedies as required by the Pupil Assignment 
Law, and more particularly the requirements of North 
Carolina General Statutes 115-178 and 115-179 without hav­
ing obtained the relief sought and that the plaintiffs are 
now entitled to the relief prayed for as contained in their 
original complaint, which is as follows:

Wherefore, plaintiffs respectfully pray:
(1) That the Court convene a three-judge Court as re­

quired by Title 28, United States Code, Sections 2281 and 
2284.

(2) That the Court advance this cause on the docket and 
order a speedy hearing of the application for interlocutory 
injunction and upon such hearings:

(a) The Court enter a temporary injunction or restrain­
ing order enjoining and restraining the defendants and 
each of them, their agents, servants, employees, successors 
in office, attorneys and all persons in concert with them who 
shall receive notice of the order, from enforcing Sections 
2 and 12, Article 9, of the Constitution of North Carolina, 
or Articles 20, 21, 34 and 35, Chapter 115 of the General 
Statutes of North Carolina, against the plaintiffs or any 
of them, or against any member of the class of persons that 
plaintiffs represent for the reason that sections 2 and 12, 
Article 9, of the North Carolina Constitution and Articles 
20, 21, 34, and 35, Chapter 115 of the General Statutes of

Complaint for Supplemental Pleadings



78a

North Carolina and racial separation in the schools other­
wise accomplished deny to plaintiffs and the class of persons 
that they represent their privileges and immunities, and 
the equal protection of the laws secured to them by Section 
1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States and their Civil rights as guaranteed to them 
by sections 1981 and 1983 of Title 42, United States Code, 
and are for these reasons unconstitutional and void.

(3) That after this cause has been heard on its merits, 
the Court enter a final judgment, order and decree that 
will be declarative of the legal rights and relations of 
plaintiffs and the class of persons that they represent in 
the subject matters in controversy in this action.

(4) That the Court issue interlocutory and permanent 
injunctions ordering defendants to promptly present a plan 
of desegregation to the Court which will expeditiously de­
segregate the schools in Caswell County and forever re­
straining and enjoining the defendants and each of them 
from thereafter requiring these plaintiffs and all other 
Negroes of public school age to attend public schools in 
Caswell County and the State of North Carolina on a 
segregated basis.

(5) That this Court allow to plaintiffs their costs herein 
and reasonable attorney fees for their counsel and grant 
such other and further relief that may appear just and 
proper in the premises.

Complaint for Supplemental Pleadings



79a

Except as hereby amended, plaintiffs adopt and ratify 
their original complaint as if herein set out.

This 26th day of July, 1960.

C. 0. P earson, Attorney 
203% East Chapel Hill Street 

Post Office Box 1428 
Durham, North Carolina

W illiam  A. M arsh , J r ., Attorney 
203% East Chapel Hill Street 

Post Office Box 125 
Durham, North Carolina

T hurgood M arshall, Esquire 
J ack Greenberg , Esquire 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Complaint for Supplemental Pleadings



80a

I n  th e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
M iddle D istrict of N orth  Carolina 

Greensboro D ivision

Answer to Complaint for Supplemental Pleadings

[ same t it l e ]

The defendants, answering the “Complaint for Supple­
mental Pleadings” allege and say:

1.
It is admitted that plaintiffs herein filed an original com­

plaint in this Court December 10, 1956, and a complaint 
for supplemental pleadings January 20th, 1958, and that 
the defendants attempted to invoke the jurisdiction of this 
Court. It is further admitted that the plaintiffs herein 
attempted to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under 
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Title 28, U. S. Code, 
Annotated Rule 15(d). Except as herein admitted, the 
allegations of Paragraph 1 of the Supplemental Complaint 
are denied.

2.

It is admitted that the allegations of said Supplemental 
Complaint concern matters which are alleged to have oc­
curred subsequent to the filing of the original complaint 
and the Supplemental Complaint on January 20, 1958. 
Except as herein admitted, the allegations of Paragraph 
2 of the Supplemental Complaint are denied.



81a

3.
It is admitted that at the close of the 1959-60 school 

year, the Caswell County School Board assigned the follow­
ing minor plaintiffs to schools attended by Negro children 
in prior years: Malloy Mitchell, Alexander Jeffers, Charlie 
James Jeffers, Sylveen Jeffers, Fred Saunders, Marie Ann 
Saunders, Charlie Saunders, Jr., Nathan Brown, Lunceford 
(Lundsord) Brown, Sheliah Brown, Hernalene Mitchell, 
Curtis Mitchell, Zelodis Mitchell and Vera Mitchell. Except 
as herein admitted, the allegations contained in Paragraph 
3 are denied, and it is specifically denied that Ruby Lee 
Saunders, Edna Pearl Saunders, Joshland Brown and 
Reginald Mitchell are party plaintiff or parties to this 
action. Odell Mitchell was not assigned to any school since 
he graduated in 1960.

Answer to Complaint for Supplemental Pleadings

4.
It is admitted that the parents of Malloy Mitchell, Nathan 

Brown, Lunsford Brown, Sheliah Brown, Charlie Jeffers, 
Alexander Jeffers, Sylveen Jeffers, Fred Saunders and 
Charlie Saunders filed in apt time the attached applications, 
marked exhibits 1 through 9 inclusive. Except as herein 
admitted, the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 are 
denied, and it is specifically denied that any party plaintiffs 
other than the one above listed filed any applications or 
petition for transfer.

5.
It is admitted that on June 17, 1960, the Caswell County 

Board of Education denied the petitions or applications for 
reassignment for the following named plaintiffs: Malloy 
Mitchell, Nathan Brown, Lunceford Brown, Sheliah Brown,



82a

Charlie Jeffers, Alexander Jeffers and Sylveen Jeffers. 
Except as herein admitted, all other allegations contained 
in Paragraph 5 are denied.

6.

It is admitted that in apt time the Caswell County Board 
of Education received the attached letters, marked Exhibits 
10 through 13, inclusive. Except as herein admitted, all 
other allegations contained in Paragraph 6 are denied.

7.

It is admitted that on July 6, 1960, the Caswell County 
School Board granted a hearing for Malloy Mitchell, Nathan 
Brown, Lunceford Brown, Sheliah Brown, Charlie Jeffers, 
Alexander Jeffers and Sylveen Jeffers, and it is admitted 
that Jasper Brown, parent of Nathan Brown, Lunceford 
Brown and Sheliah Brown, was present, and that George 
Mitchell and wife Ada Mitchell, parents of Malloy Mitchell 
were present; and it is further admitted that C. 0. Pearson, 
Attorney, was present and submitted the attached memo­
randum, marked Exhibit 14, for each of the following: 
Malloy Mitchell, Nathan Brown, Lunceford Brown, Sheliah 
Brown, Charlie Jeffers, Alexander Jeffers, Sylveen Jeffers; 
it is also further admitted that the Caswell County Board 
of Education denied at that time the applications for re­
assignment of the above named seven plaintiffs. Except 
as herein admitted all other allegations contained in Para­
graph 7 are denied.

Answer to Complaint for Supplemental Pleadings

8.

It is admitted that on the 15th day of July, 1960, a hear­
ing was held for Fred Saunders and Charlie H. Saunders,



83a

Jr., and that Charlie H. Saunders, Sr. was present along 
with William A. Marsh, Jr., Attorney, and William A. 
Marsh, Jr., Attorney, submitted a written memorandum 
hereto attached, marked Exhibit 15; it is further admitted 
that the petitions or applications for reassignment of 
Charlie H. Saunders, Jr. and Fred Saunders were denied. 
Except as herein admitted all other allegations contained 
in Paragraph 8 are denied.

Answer to Complaint for Supplemental Pleadings

9.
The allegations contained in Paragraph 9 are denied.
W herefore, having fully answered the Supplemental 

Complaint, the defendants pray that this action be dis­
missed with prejudice, and that the costs of this action be 
taxed against the plaintiffs.

This the 5th day of August, 1960.

R obert R . B lackw ell, Attorney for the 
Caswell County Board of Education 
Yanceyville, North Carolina



84a

I n  t h e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
M iddle D istrict of N orth  Carolina 

Greensboro D ivision

Stipulations (October, 1960)

[ same t it l e ]

In the above entitled action, now pending in the District 
Court of the United States, for the Middle District of 
North Carolina, Greensboro Division, it is Stipulated by 
and between Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Counsel for the 
Defendant as follows:

1.
That at the beginning of the 1960-61 school year 16 of the 

original 44 plaintiffs in this action are still attending the 
public schools administered by the Caswell County School 
Board, and are presently enrolled in the respective schools 
and grades opposite their respective names:

Name of Pupil School Grade
1. Hernalene Mitchell Caswell County Training School 11
2. Curtis Mitchell Caswell County Training School 9
3. Zelodis Mitchell Highrock Elementary School 7
4. Veria Mitchell Highrock Elementary School 5
5. Maloy Mitchell Caswell County Training School 12
6. Ruth Mitchell Caswell County Training School 11
7. Tony Mitchell Highrock Elementary School 8



Stipulations (October, 1960)

8. Mae Tresea
Mitchell Highrock Elementary School 7

9. Alexander Jeffers Caswell County Training School 11
10. Sylveen Jeffers Caswell County Training School 9
11. Nathan Brown Caswell County Training School 8
12. Lunsford Brown Caswell County Training School 6
13. Sheliah Brown Caswell County Training School 5
14. Charlie Saunders, 

Jr. New Dotmond School 7
15. Fred Saunders New Dotmond School 7
16. Meria Saunders New Dotmond School 4

2.

That on May 31, 1960, the following minor plaintiffs were 
assigned to the Caswell County Training School by means 
of notification on their respective report cards :

Maloy Mitchell, Nathan Brown, Lunsford Brown, Sheliah 
Brown, Charlie Jeffers, Alexander Jeffers and Sylveen 
Jeffers. Caswell County Training School which is attended 
predominately by negro students.

3.
That on May 31, 1960, by means of notification on their 

respective report cards the following minor plaintiffs were 
assigned to New Dotmond Elementary School, a school 
attended predominately by negro students:

Charlie Saunders and Fred Saunders.



86a

4.
That on June 9, 1960, the adult plaintiff parents filed 

petitions hereto attached marked, Exhibits 1 through 9, 
inclusive, for their respective minor plaintiffs. Said ap­
plications were filed in apt time, after the original assign­
ments were made, seeking reassignment from the schools 
they had been assigned. [Exhs. 1-9, Applications for change 
of Pupil Assignment not reprinted in this appendix.]

5.
That in apt time the Board gave consideration to the 

applications heretofore set out and Exhibit No. 10. hereto 
attached shows the action of the Board in regard to the 
applications heretofore filed.

6.

That in due time minor plaintiff parents were notified 
of the action taken by the Board and in apt time filed Ex­
hibit Nos. 11 through 14, inclusive, hereto attached, re­
questing a hearing in regard to the rejection of their 
children’s application for reassignment. [Exhs. 11-14 not 
reprinted in this appendix.]

Stipulations (October, 1960)

7.
That on July 6, 1960, the Caswell County School Board 

granted a hearing on the applications of the plaintiffs, 
Jasper Brown, John M. Jeffers and Ada Mitchell, and 
present at the hearing were Jasper Brown and wife, Odessa 
Brown, adult plaintiffs and parents or guardians of Nathan 
Brown, Lunsford Brown and Sheliah Brown, minor plain­
tiffs herein; George Mitchell and wife, Ada Mitchell, adult



87a

plaintiffs and parents or guardians of Maloy Mitchell, minor 
plaintiff herein, and also present for said hearing was 
C. 0. Pearson, their Counsel of record, who read an. in­
dividual memorandum, a copy of which is hereto attached 
marked, Exhibit No. 15. This memorandum was filed for 
and in behalf of Nathan Brown, Lunsford Brown, Sheliah 
Brown, Maloy Mitchell, Alexander Jeffers, Charlie Jeffers 
and Sylveen Jeffers. [Exh. 15 not reprinted in this appen­
dix.]

8.

That neither the minor plaintiffs Alexander Jeffers, 
Charlie Jeffers and Sylveen Jeffers, nor their parents or 
guardians were present at said hearing, although they had 
received proper notification of said hearing. However, C.
O. Pearson, Attorney, stated that he had a Power of Attor­
ney to represent John M. Jeffers, and he presented, as 
heretofore stated, a written appeal for each of said minor 
plaintiffs.

9.
That attached hereto and marked Exhibit Nos. 16 and 

17, which is an exact copy of the action taken by the Board 
in regards to the applications of Alexander Jeffers, Charlie 
Jeffers, Sylveen Jeffers, Maloy Mitchell, Sheliah Brown, 
Lunsford Brown and Nathan Brown.

10.

That on July 15, 1960, a hearing was held by the Caswell 
County Board of Education on the appeals of Charlie 
Saunders, adult plaintiff parent or guardian of Charlie 
Saunders and Fred Saunders, minor plaintiffs herein; that

Stipulations (October, 1960)



88a

said appeals were in writing and are hereto attached, 
marked Exhibit Nos. 18 and 19. Said appeals were read 
by William A. Marsh, Jr., Attorney, of record to the Board 
in the presence of the full Board and Charlie Saunders, 
Sr., adult plaintiff, who was also present. That after the 
hearing of the application of Charlie Saunders, the adult 
plaintiff parent and guardian of Fred and Charlie Saunders, 
minor plaintiffs herein, the Caswell County Board again 
denied the petition filed by the adult plaintiff, a copy of 
the Board’s action is hereto attached, marked, Exhibit No. 
20. [Exhs. 18-19 not reprinted in this appendix.]

11.

That each and every Exhibit attached hereto is a true 
and exact copy of the original.

12.

That the Caswell County Training School is a High 
School located in the village of Yanceyville, North Caro­
lina and is predominantly attended by students of the 
Negro race; thgj^&ar^l^t Yancey High School is a High 
School also JocatedMn tne\ village of Yanceyville, North 
Carolina, aid  is |3redominantly attended by White students. 
These two Schools" ar<TlWl^d only one and one-half blocks 
apart; that\New_DotmpiH Elementary School is an ele­
mentary schd&Jaeat^d iiA Caswell County, North Caro­
lina, and is predominantly attended by students of the 
Negro race, anisQs the scWol presently attended by Charlie 
Saunders, Jr., anxH^erTSaunders, said school being located 
four and two-tenths miles from their home; that there is 
located a school attended predominantly by White students, 
located two and four-tenths miles from the Saunders chil­

Stipulations (October, 1960)



89a

dren’s home, called Murphy School. Charlie H. Saunders, 
Jr. and Fred Saunders ride a school bus to New Dotmond 
School, this school bus runs by their home since they live 
on Highway No. 62. There is also a school bus which goes 
by their home to Murphy School. Murphy School being 
located West of Charlie Saunders’ home and New Dotmond 
School being located East of Charlie Saunders’ home.

13.
That all minor plaintiffs travel to and from the schools 

they are presently attending by school buses provided by 
the Caswell County Board of Education, and this would 
be true had their applications for transfer been granted.

14.
That the Caswell County Training School is the only 

school in Caswell County accredited by the Southern Asso­
ciation of Colleges and Secondary Schools.

15.
That the adult plaintiffs, Jasper Brown and wife, Odessa 

Brown and their children, Nathan Brown, Lunsford Brown 
and Sheliah Brown, reside live and one-half miles from 
Yanceyville, North Carolina. The said Brown’s reside at 
the end of a dead-end county road, said road being two 
and one-half miles in length, and all of the school children 
residing on this road attend Caswell County Training 
School and a Caswell County Training bus goes to within 
four-tenths of a mile of Brown’s home. It is two and one- 
half miles from Brown’s home to the nearest Bartlett Yan­
cey High School bus line; that at present there are no

Stipulations (October, 1960)



90a

White residents having children in school residing in this 
general community.

This the day of October, 1960.

Respectfully submitted,

C. 0 .  P earson 
Attorney at Law

203% East Chapel Hill Street 
Durham, North Carolina

W illiam  A. M arsh , J r.
Attorney at Law 

203% East Chapel Hill Street 
Durham, North Carolina

Counsel for Plaintiffs
R obert R . B lackwell 

Attorney at Law
Yanceyville, North Carolina

Counsel for Defendants

Stipulations (October, 1960)



91a

EXHIBITS ANNEXED TO STIPULATIONS 
(OCTOBER, 1960)

E x h ib it  # 1 0

October 27, 1959

The Board gave consideration for individual applications 
for change of pupil assignment and took action as in­
dicated below:

Samuel Malloy Mitchell—originally assigned to Cas­
well County Traning School; requested transfer to 
Bartlett Yancey. This student’s records were checked 
thoroughly and considerable discussion held concern­
ing same, along with school bus routing, location of 
student’s home and information in the school records 
and on the application form. Motion was made by 
Oliver, seconded by Hodges and passed unanimously 
rejecting the application.
Charlie Jeffers—originally assigned to Caswell County 
Training School; requested transfer to Bartlett Yan­
cey. This student’s records were checked thoroughly 
and considerable discussion held concerning same, 
along with school bus routing, location of student’s 
home and information in the school records and on the 
application form. Motion was made by Wilkinson, 
seconded by Smith and passed unanimously rejecting 
the application.
Alexander Jeffers—originally assigned to Caswell 
County Training School; requested transfer to Bart­
lett Yancey. This student’s records were checked 
thoroughly and considerable discussion held concern­
ing same, along with school bus routing, location of 
student’s home and information in the school records 
and on the application form. Motion was made by



92a

Smith, seconded by Hodges and passed unanimously 
rejecting the application.
Sylveen Jeffers—originally assigned to Caswell County 
Training School; requested transfer to Bartlett Yan­
cey. This student’s records were checked thoroughly 
and considerable discussion held concerning same, 
along with school bus routing, location of student’s 
home and information in the school records and on 
the application form. Motion was made by Hodges, 
seconded by Wilkinson and passed unanimously re­
jecting the application.

Lunsford Brown—originally assigned to Caswell 
County Training School; requested transfer to Bart­
lett Yancey. This student’s records were checked 
thoroughly and considerable discussion held concern­
ing same, along with school bus routing, location of 
student’s home and information in the school records 
and on the application form. Motion was made by 
Oliver, seconded by Smith and passed unanimously 
rejecting the application.
Nathan Brown—originally assigned to Caswell County 
Training School; requested transfer to Bartlett Yan­
cey. This student’s records were checked thoroughly 
and considerable discussion held concerning same, 
along with school bus routing, location of student’s 
home and information in the school records and on the 
application form. Motion was made by Wilkinson, 
seconded by Hodges and passed unanimously reject­
ing the application.
Shelia Victoria Brown—originally assigned to Cas­
well County Training School; requested transfer to

Exhibits Annexed to Stipulations ('October, 1960)



93a

Bartlett Yancey. This student’s records were checked 
thoroughly and considerable discussion held concern­
ing same, along with school bus routing, location of 
student’s home and information in the school records 
and on the application form. Motion was made by 
Hodges, seconded by Smith and passed unanimously 
rejecting the application.
Jocelyn Brown: The application for Jocelyn Brown 
was not considered because it was not received in 
accordance with the time required after regular assign­
ments were made. This pupil’s name was not among 
the originals listed in Civil Action #  1079 December 
10,1956.

The foregoing includes all applications before the Board 
at the time of this special meeting which was held in ac­
cordance with stipulations agreed upon in Civil Action 
#  1079 as of October 27,1959.

Exhibits Annexed to Stipulations (October, 1960)



94a

Present at the Board meeting- to sit in on the hearing for 
the parents of certain pupils who had requested a hearing 
on their requests for transfer of pupil assignment were the 
Board Attorney Robert R. Blackwell, Erwin Stephens, 
Editor of the Caswell Messenger, Jack Childs from the 
Danvill Register office and Attorney C. 0. Pearson and 
his assistant L. C. Berry, along with three of the plaintiffs, 
namely Jasper Brown, George and Ada Mitchell.
Mr. C. 0. Pearson stated at the beginning of this hearing 
that all clients were present except John M. Jeffers and 
wife and that he had the power of attorney for each parent 
plaintiff.

Mr. Pearson further stated, and it was agreed by the 
Board, that the statement of appeal attached hereto for 
children of John M. Jeffers and Annie Jeffers would be 
considered individually for each child altho all three chil­
dren were named on one form.
Jasper Brown stated that he had gone to see John M. 
Jeffers for the purpose of his attending this meeting and 
that Mr. Jeffers had stated that he was too busy to attend 
the meeting.
Attached hereto are the only reasons given to the Board 
by the plaintiffs for requesting transfer. Motion was made 
by Hodges, seconded by Oliver and passed unanimously 
that this information be attached to the records but that 
the contents were neither approved nor accepted by the 
Board except as information.
After considerable study of the appeals and following fur­
ther discussion of the talks with those persons named above 
the Board took action as indicated below:

Exhibits Annexed to Stipulations ('October, 1960)

E x h ib it  # 1 6



95a

Upon motion by Wilkinson, second by Oliver and 
unanimous passage the appeal of Alexander Jeffers 
was rejected.
Upon motion by Smith, second by Hodges and unani­
mous passage, the appeal of Charlie Jeffers was re­
jected.

Upon motion by Hodges, second by Oliver and unani­
mous passage, the appeal of Sylveen Jeffers was re­
jected.
Upon motion by Hodges, second by Wilkinson and 
unanimous passage, the appeal of Malloy Mitchell 
was rejected.

Exhibits Annexed to Stipulations ('October, 1960)



96a

Upon motion by Wilkinson, second by Smith and unani­
mous passage, the appeal of Shelia Brown was re­
jected.

Upon motion by Hodges, second by Smith and unani­
mous passage, the appeal of Lunceford Brown was 
rejected.
Upon motion by Smith, second by Oliver and unani­
mous passage, the appeal of Nathan Brown was re­
jected.

The Superintendent presented the applications for change 
of pupil assignment submitted by Charlie H. Saunders 
for Charlie Saunders, Jr. and Fred Saunders. These ap­
plications were received in the Board office on June 23, 
1960 at the same time the requests for hearing were pre­
sented for other applications which had been denied. Since 
the applications from Mr. Saunders had been brought by 
the Superintendent’s office by the Principal of New Dot- 
mond School to ask about transcripts of records and since 
he had taken applications back to Mr. Saunders the local 
attorney advised the Board to receive and act on said ap­
plications.

The Board studied the information in the applications of 
the Saunders children, the transcript attached to each, and 
other information available; and after deliberating for 
some time took action as indicated below:

Upon motion by Oliver, second by Smith and unani­
mous passage, the application of Charlie Saunders, 
Jr. was rejected.

Exhibits Annexed to Stipulations ('October, 1960)

E x h ib it  # 1 7



97a

Upon motion by Wilkinson, second by Hodges and 
unanimous passage, the application of Fred Saunders 
was rejected.

The Superintendent was directed to advise by registered 
mail the parents of the students for whom the above action 
was taken.

Exhibits Annexed to Stipulations (October, I960)



98a

jb  4b JLIP  *SP ■!? X  IP

Present for a special hearing for Charlie Saunders, Jr. 
and Fred Saunders, in accordance with a request for same, 
were Mr. C. H. Saunders and Attorney William A. March, 
Jr.
Mr. Marsh presented a written appeal for Charlie Saun­
ders, Jr. and Fred Saunders from the recent rejections of 
the applications for transfer from these students. There 
was a brief discussion but it was noted that these appeals 
offered nothing new or additional to applications or in­
formation already on file.
The Board directed that these appeals be attached to 
the minutes in the records but upon motion by Hodges, 
second by Oliver and unanimous passage, the Board neither 
approved nor accepted allegations in said appeals and 
they are recorded only as information.
Upon motion by Wilkinson, second by Oliver and unani­
mous passage, the Board rejected the appeal of Fred 
Saunders.
Upon motion by Hodges, second by Smith and unanimous 
passage, the Board rejected the appeal of Charlie Saun­
ders, Jr.

Exhibits Annexed to Stipulations (October, 1960)

E x h ib it  # 2 0



99a

C o u rt R e p o r te r ’s R e p o r t  o f  T r ia l  W ith  D ep o sitio n s

E xcerpts F rom T ranscript of D epositions—  
August 24,1960

—3—
T homas H . W h itley , h av in g  been  f irs t d u ly  sw orn , te s t i ­

fied a s  fo llo w s :

Direct Examination by Mr. Bell:
Q. Will you state your full name, please? A. T. H. 

Whitley.
Q. And your position? A. Superintendent—my official 

position is Secretary to the Board, Superintendent of 
Schools.

Q. Which Schools ? A. Caswell County.
# # # # *

—4—
# =* # # *

Q. You are present at each of the Board meetings? A. 
Yes.

Q. And maintain the records ? A. Yes.

Q. That is, were the schools on a—were they on a biracial 
system at that time? That is, were there separate schools
to r  negr^fis-^md-^epamte schools for w hites! ATBefore

_JT5^yes. ----~~ ~-----
Q. Do you understand what I mean when I refer to the

—5—
1954 School Decision of the United States Supreme Court? 
A. I think I do.

—6—
# * * # *

Q. Are there references in the Minutes of the Board indi­
cating that the Caswell County School System would, after



100a

a certain date be following the procedures set forth by the 
North Carolina Pupil Placement Act? A. Yes.

Q. Are there now zone lines with reference to the schools 
indicating where a particular student will go? A. No, I 
don’t think so.

—7—
Q. There are no zone lines at all determining whether a 

student goes to school “A ” or school “B”? A. I  don’t 
think so.

Q. What method do you use for assigning students to 
the schools? A. Well, the Board had to start somewhere 
and it started as of the point with individual pupil assign­
ments. And from that time on, has acted on that same 
basis considering where they have been going and on appli­

cations for any change on individual basis.
Q. Would it be correct to say that where a particular 

request for assignment was not received that the student, 
be he white or black, would be assigned to the school to 
which he would have been assigned prior to the Board 
adopting the policy as set forth by the North Carolina 
Pupil Placement Act? A. I don’t follow you on that.

Q. Prior to 1954, were there schools in the system that 
were designated white and other schools that were desig­
nated negro? A. Before 1954, yes.

Q. After the Board adopted the North Carolina Pupil 
Placement Act was it the policy to assign students to the

— 8—

schools to which they would have been assigned prior to 
1954 where no special transfer applications were received? 
A. If I understand you correctly, I would say not as such.

Q. Could you give more details on that? A. What I 
mean by “as such” is that we do not designate them as 
white or negro any more.

Thomas H. Whitley—a Defendant—Direct



101a

Q. Since 1954 would it be true that while no longer desig­
nated as such, there are schools which all negroes attend 
and there are schools which the whole population of which 
is white? A. Yes.

Q. Then we will repeat the prior question. Where no 
particular school is requested by the student or the parent, 
is it the policy of the Board to assign that student to the 
school to which he would have been assigned prior to 1954? 
A. I think you would say yes. __

Q. What is the procedure when a child requests a school 
other than that which he would have been assigned prior 
to 1954? A. Would it be sufficient to say that we follow

—9—
the Pupil Placement Act.

Q. When the application is made by the student, request­
ing transfer, how is the student or his parents notified as 
to the Board’s decision? A. Upon the application for 
transfer by Registered Mail with a return receipt requested.

Q. And is the student then given a period of time in which 
to appeal the Board’s decision? A. Yes.

# # # # *
Q. What length of time is given? A. Five (5) days. All 

of that is in the Pupil Placement Act.
Q. The original assignments were made how? A. They 

are announced in the newspaper.
Q. And then the apjoeal procedure is as you have ex­

plained it? A. That’s right.
Q. When the student appeals properly within the five 

days, there is a later hearing? A. Yes.
Q. By the Board? A. Yes.

— 10—

Q. And a subsequent decision as to the appeal? A. Yes.

Thomas H. Whitley—a Defendant—Direct



102a

Q. In reaching this decision, what standards or criteria 
does the Board use in determining whether to deny or up­
hold a transfer request of the student? A. All the informa­
tion it can find out about—that would be pertinent to the 
case, the pupil’s individual record, accumulated folders, 
where they live, their records and the reasons they give on 
the application form, or any such information that the 
Board can obtain pertinent to the case.

Q. Are there any written standards followed by the 
Board? A. I don’t think there are written standards, ex­
cept as in the Pupil Placement Act, the guide that we have 
in there.

Q. Are there any different tests applied to negro students 
who seek transfers than those of the white? A. No.

Q. Are negro transfer applicants given different tests 
than those as applied to whites ? A. No.

Q. Are the students seeking transfers given any special
—1 1 -

tests in order to help compile this record that helps make 
your decision? A. We haven’t used that so far.

Q. You said that you evaluate these students by his record 
and also the information he places on his application as to 
why he wants to go to another school. How in practice does 
that work? A. The Board studies the information and then 
they make up their minds as to the decision they ought 
to render from the information they get.

Q. But for example, say the child had a poor record. 
Would that reflect adversely on his chances for a transfer 
or if he had a brilliant record would that reflect favorably? 
In other words, what can you tell us that would help us 
make an objective list of the qualifications a student would 
need in order to win a transfer? A. I don’t think I can 
help you on that line. The Board studies the record and

Thomas H. Whitley—a Defendant—Direct



103a

they make up their decision on that. They don’t give all 
the reasons for voting the way they do. They make motions 
after studying. We have discussions on the situation hut 
I don’t know that I could tell you why they vote the way 
they do.

—12—
Q. Would you say then that in great degree the testing 

standards are subjective rather than objective? A. I think 
they are objective.

Q. Yet you are unable to explain how the Board acts 
when faced with the. record of a child with good grades or 
bad grades close to the school he wants a transfer to. Are 
any of these things given special weight? A. I think 
everything they can detect whether they are good or bad 
would be given special weight. But as to whether they would 
vote one way for the good grades or another way for the 
bad grades, I can’t say.

# # * # #
Q. Can you tell me the approximate number of students

- 1 3 -
in your school system, sir? A. We usually say six thou­
sand. We don’t have quite six thousand students as a rule. 
I don’t know what we have this year.

Q. And the number of schools and a breakdown as to 
elementary, Junior High, etc.? A. There are fifteen (15) 
school units. Five (5) of which are union schools.

Q. Union? A. That is the elementary and high school 
combined. The remainder is just elementary.

# # # * #
Q. Am I correct in assuming that the population of some 

of these schools is negro predominantly and some of the 
schools are predominantly white ? A. Yes.

# * # # #

Thomas H. Whitley—a Defendant—Direct



104a

Thomas H. Whitley—a Defendant—Direct

— 14—

# # # # #
Q. How many students—strike that—Of the six Thou­

sand students, approximately how many are negro? A. 
A few over three thousand (3,000). It is in excess of fifty 
percent.

Q. Of this three thousand plus, how many negroes have— 
since your system had adopted the North Carolina Pupil 
Assignment Act—how many have applied for transfer? 
A. How many pupils ?

Q. How many negro pupils have applied for transfer to 
schools which are predominantly white in population? A. 
Forty-Four (44) I believe.

Q. Have all of the forty-four gone through the proce­
dures as you outlined earlier? A. Not all of them.

Q. Those that have properly followed the procedure, how
—15—

many has the Board granted transfers to? A. There 
haven’t been any transfers granted.

* # * # #
Q. Of the students who have properly applied and had 

their transfer applications denied, are the reasons for the 
denial written down? A. No.

— 16—

Q. Are they in the Minutes of the Board? A. No. The 
action is in the Minutes.

Q. Just the final decision? A. The final decision.
Q. At this time, would it be possible to reduce to writing 

one, two, three, the reasons why any or all of the denied 
transfers have been denied? A. Not by me. I don’t know.

* * * * *



105a

Q. Have you, as the secretary of the Board, been given 
a list of the reasons which the Board uses in determining 
whether to deny the application of the students? A. No.

# .v. -Y-.w

Q. Is race a subject of discussion when the transfer is
—17—

before the Board? A. Its been mentioned particularly in 
the letters from Mr. Pearson and Mr. Marsh as being 
practically the only thing mentioned in those letters of 
appeal. The most times I remember it being mentioned 
would be in connection with it being in those letters.

* # # # #
Q. What type of consideration is such an answer given 

by the Board? A. They wonder why it is so much on the 
race question.

Q. And what conclusion does that usually lead to? A. 
Well, what I am answering is my impression. You are 
asking me questions which seem to be that you ought to 
be asking the Board, but my impression is that they regard

—18—
these appeals as being made on the basis of race rather 
than other reasons.

* * # # #
Q. Going back to the general set-up of the schools. Are 

there generally negro teachers and principals and school 
employees in the schools which are predominantly negro 
and vice versa for white ? A. Yes.

# # * * *
—19—

* # # # #
Q- That ia^oaMImJkfflmal agenda, has there been discus- 

sion at tlm faculty meetings for plans or preparation fop

Thomas H. Whitley—a Defendant—Direct



106a

(. desegregatingjOie__school system! A Not to mv knnmL—  
edge"" -NowTyou refertoTacuIty. That gets out to the indi­
vidual school principals and so on.

Q. I was speaking though generally of the meetings you 
might hold where both negro and white—that might be 
held in the administration for all faculty people. A. Well, 
now our administrative conference is a usual thing once a 
month in this room. We have our negro principals and our 
white principals and supervisors meeting at the same time 
and we don’t shy away from talking about integration, 
segregation, race, and so on. We talk about it. It would

—20—
be on the agenda if it is called for. But this group has not 
sat down and made any plans for changing the school sys­
tem, desegregating, segregating, keeping it as it is or any­
thing of that sort and it would not be the authority of that 
group. Its for the Board of Education to make the pupil 
assignment.

* # * * #
— 21—

* * # # #
Q. Is there separate transportation for the predomi­

nantly negro schools and the predominantly white schools!
A. Each school has buses assigned to it in accordance with 
the number of students expected to enroll and the princi­
pals of the individual schools prepare their own bus routes.
So whatever students attend that particular school, they 
go on their own buses to that school.

* # # # #
Q. Is it possible that there are courses taught in one 

school which might be predominantly negro or white which 
are not offered in any of the other schools! A. Yes.

# # * # #

Thomas H. Whitley—a Defendant—Direct



107a

C. N. Barker—a Defendant—Direct

—25—
Q. Is there any elective course which is offered in a 

predominantly white school, which is not offered in a pre­
dominantly negro school? A. I don’t think of any. I 
would have to go through the various school programs 
and get them out and compare them. I don’t memorize 
them and don’t have them right before me. I am rather 
sure the answer would be no.

Q. Are the standards of accomplishment, the results of 
general achievement tests comparable in comparing the 
predominantly negro schools with the predominantly white 
schools? A. We could get information like that if you had 
to have it but we don’t try to get it and compare the races. 
We get our county norms all the way across and we have 
plenty of records of achievement and all other kinds of 
standardized tests and so on but we don’t compare the 
races in the matter.

Q. Well, just by schools rather than by races? A. The 
schools have their own comparisons. They compare one 
grade with another and they compare different children 
with each other without being personal about it. But we 
don’t play one school against the

* # * # #

—31—
C. N. B arker, h av in g  been  f irs t d u ly  sw orn , te s tified  as 

fo llo w s :

Direct Examination by Mr. Bell:

Q. Will you give your full name, please? A. €. N. 
Barker.

Q. What is your position in relation to the Board of



108a

Education? A. I am the Chairman of the Board of Edu­
cation in Caswell County.

Q. How long have you held that position, sir? A. Twelve 
months or more.

Q. Were you a member of the Board prior to the time 
you took over the Chairmanship? A. I was.

# # # # #
—32—

Q. Then you were on the Board prior to ’54? A. Yes.
# # * # #

Q. Did you preside at the meeting of the Board where 
these determinations were made? A. I did.

—33—
Q. Were all members present at that time? A. They 

were.
Q. Did they express their reasons to you as Chairman 

as to how they were basing their decision? A. Well, some 
did and some might have not. But when they voted, they 
voted according to their conscience not mine.

* * * # #
—34—

Q. But if he had indicated that he was basing his deci­
sion on his either like or dislike of the personality of the 
individual, you would have accepted that as his basis? A. 
I suppose so.

Q. Could the ability of the transfer applicant to get along 
with students in the school where he wanted to go be a 
factor? A. It could be.

Q. Could it be a factor if the Board member felt that a 
negro child would not get along well and adjust to relate 
to his fellow students in the predominantly white schools?

C. N. Barker—a Defendant—Direct



109a

A. It wouldn’t with me because that would be letting race 
enter in to it.

Q. Would you then object to it if another one of your 
Board members indicated that this was a factor in his 
decision? A. That Board member has just as much right 
to vote as he pleases as I do to vote like I please.

* * # # #
Q. Would you consider it a valid ground for change of

—3 5 -
assignment that the student indicated that he objected to 
being segregated? A. You mean, would we reassign a 
student with that being his only plea?

Q. That is right. We understand that many of the trans­
ferees made their main if not sole basis for asking transfers 
that they wanted not to be segregated. A. I would not base
my opinion on that. — .......... '

Q. You would not give this consideration^—A_No.
Q. Can you help us, rather than have me try to numerate 

and try to figure out which are and which are not grounds, 
give me some of the considerations which you use in judg­
ing the applications that were placed before you? A. Well, 
some of them was the riding of the buses.

Q. Could you explain that, sir?

Mr. Blackwell: Name some specific cases.

A. Well, the fellow Brown, I believe he was Chester Brown, 
he lived two and a half miles from the Bartley-Yancey bus 
route. He lives a half mile from the Training School bus 
route. And on that two miles in there, its a State maintained

- 3 6 -
road but its a small road and its dangerous to try to operate 
the two buses on that same road at approximately the same

C. N. Barker—a Defendant—Direct



110a

hour. And then when we assigned that student, to Caswell 
Training School we have done all we can in our county be­
cause every way you look at it, it is the best school we have 
in the county and the distance between Bartley-Yancey and 
Caswell Training School is practically a rock’s throw dis­
tance.

^  ^

Q. Then what are the factors ? Again back to this, what
- 37-

are the factors that really mean something to you! A. 
Well, if he was being sent out of the county over yonder 
to a high school or something like you have read about in 
some counties, I think he would have a mighty good show­
ing to go to school in his own county. But now if he is on 
a bus and the difference in this school is a mile or two fur- 
ther than that school over there I don’t consider that any 
difference, especially when he is going to the best school 
we have. The school that teaches more subjects than any" 
"other school we have. Its got more teachers and higher 
priced teachers and we’re going to pull him away from that 
school and send him to the other one just for the difference 
of a mile or two.

Q. I understand, sir, that there is one student whose 
application to the Murphy School was denied. His name 
was Charlie Saunders. He lives very close to this school. 
A. What do you call very close?

Q. Closer to the Murphy School than any of the others. 
A. He does.

Q. Can you explain to us why the Board denied his trans-
— 38—

fer application? A. I can’t tell you why the Board did but 
I can tell you why I did. Those buses go right by—I don’t 
say right by the door but right in front of his home. He

C. N. Barker—a Defendant—Direct



111a

lives right close to the road. The bus to the Dolman School. 
The Dotman School has thirteen teachers. The Murphy 
School has six teachers. He has facilities over there that he 
doesn’t have at Murphy School. The other part of the 
family goes to Dotman and they are applying—in other 
words they wouldn’t be at Murphy School before they would 
come to Yancey, so its making another change for them just 
for one year.

Mr. Blackwell: Mr. Barker, was the application— 
on the application of Charlie Saunders children, was 
any specified school mentioned that they desired to 
go to?

A. His application said any school—the nearest integrated 
school, I believe was the way he had it.

* * * * *
—39—

Q. Is there any way of providing to students—negro 
students who would like to seek transfers an idea of what 
type situation they would have to be in before you as a 
Board member would vote for their transfer? A. No.

—40—
Q^Then you would say there would be no objective stand- 

ardslvhlch you give them ahead of time^not distance alone? 
A. Fo. I am not going to give them-anything ahead of time,'. 

* * * * *

E. J. Smith—a Defendant—Direct



112a

E. J. Smith—a Defendant—Direct

— 48—
E. J. S m it h , h av in g  been f irs t d u ly  sw orn , te s tified  as 

fo llo w s :

Direct Examination by Mr. Bell:

Q. Will yon give your name, please? A. E, J. Smith.
Q. And you are a member of the Board of Education of 

Caswell County? A. That’s right. I ’m the newest member.
Q. And you have been a member for how long? A. For 

about a year and a half, I believe.
Q. Did you take part in the meetings where the decision 

was made as to the plaintiffs and other negro students 
seeking transfer from the schools to which they were as­
signed to other schools? A. Only those nine to which you 
have before you now.

Q. What standards or criteria did you use in voting on 
the placement of each of these students? A. Well, I con­
sidered each individual case and voted the way I felt in 
connection with each individual case.

Q. What were some of the standards that you used? A. 
Well, some of the reasons that I have voted for them to be 
declined were in agreement with Mr. Barker. In fact, most 
of them would be in agreement with Mr. Barker. Distance, 
actually riding of school buses, the standard of the school, 
the highest standards of the school that they were now at- 
—ding^  They_wai^-S£eMngr-JLiL.mv estimation, to enter a

.ool that didn’t have—didn’t offer the opportunities that

—49—
* *



113a

- -llia^one that they were now attending did. That—those 
are some of the reasons.

# # # # #
—50—

# # =£ #
Q. Have yon ever been given a list of standards to use 

in helping you with your decision as to whether the trans­
fer application should be granted or denied. A. I  don’t 
have a list of such standards. —

QT'Has the Board formulated such a list, as far as you 
know? A. I don’t know. It has attempted to follow the 
Pearsall Plan or the North Carolina School Placement Act.

Q. Then ruling on the applications for transfer, you are 
given a good deal of discretion as to judgment in either 
granting or denying? A. Yes, I considered the merits of 
the case, of each individual case thoroughly before voting, 
as each and every member did.

—51—
Q. During the time that you have been a member, have 

you ever personally voted to grant a transfer application 
of a negro student to a predominantly white school? A. 
No, nor white either. We have some requests for transfer 
of white students which for one reason or other weren’t 
granted.

Q. Would any of the transfer applications be to a school 
which was predominantly negro? A. I don’t think they 
were. No.

Q. They were to schools which were predominantly white? 
A. Eight.

Q. And you say that you have never voted to grant any 
such transfer? A. No, because after studying the case on 
each one of the requests, it didn’t seem to be wise.

E. J. Smith—a Defendant—Direct



114a

Q. Can you give me just a rough guess of how many ap­
plications of white students you have passed on? A. I 
remember only two, I believe in the short time that I have 
been on the Board.

Q. Then a greater number have been of negro students
— 52—

for transfer applications? A. That is correct,
* * # * #

Q. In making general assignments to the schools do you 
vote to assign the child to the school to which he was attend­
ing in the past year? A. Actually, that doesn’t come 
directly to us. That first goes to the principal I believe, 
of the school. He makes application to the principal of 
the given school, the school of his choice, I presume.

Q. Then these assignments are made by the principal, is 
that right? A. Its more or less with the approval of the 
Board. The Board later approves them.

Q. And the principal generally assigns students where 
there is no transfer application involved, he generally as­
signs the students where they went or where they would 
have gone the previous year? A. I think that’s correct.

— 53—

Q. And this has gone on right back down the line. Last 
year it was done as they were assigned the year before and 
so forth? A. Yes, that is the procedure, I believe.

Mr. Bell: That’s all I have.

Cross Examination by Mr. Blackwell:
# * # # *

— 54—

Q. I believe in the Mitchell child too, Mr. Smith, I be­
lieve this child was an eleventh grade student. Is that cor­

E. J. Smith—a Defendant—Cross



115a

rect ? A. That child was an eleventh grade student and he 
had had French at C. C. T. S. and the school that he was 
requesting transfer to did not offer that subject.

Q. All of those things, the records that you had, distance, 
re-routing on the school buses, and all of those things en­
tered into your decision. Your decision wasn’t based on any 
particular thing but all of that was considered, wasn’t it? 
A. That’s right. Several things caused us to form the de­
cision that we did on each individual case.

Mr. Blackwell: That’s all I have.
Mr. Bell: Just one further question. Is there set 

of factors, which, if they all were listed on a negro 
students application for transfer that would cause 
you to give favorable consideration to that transfer?

A. Well, it depends on what those factors were or it would 
to me.

Q. Would you have any idea in advance what  such fac-
-  ... - —  “ - 5 5 -

tors might be? A. No.
* * * # #

J. A. Hodges—a Defendant—Direct

—56—
J. A. H odges, h a v in g  been  f irs t du ly  sw orn , te s tified  as 

fo llo w s :

Direct Examination by Mr. Bell:

Q. How long Mr. Hodges, have you been a member of the 
School Board? A. About eight (8) years.

Q. Eight years? A. Yes.
Q. And I take it that during this period you have passed



116a

on the transfer applications of the negro students which 
have come before the Board? A. That’s right,

Q. And you have made an individual decision in each of 
these cases? A. I have.

* # # # *
Q. Did you vote to grant the transfer application of any 

of the negro students that you passed on? A. No.
Q. Were you provided with a written set of standards to

- 57-

help you arrive at your decision? A. No, it was my own 
decision.

Q. Then you use your own personal standards in order 
to decide each case? A. That’s right. We voted on it and 
we passed on it as we voted.

Q. Could you tell us what some of those standards that 
you used were? A. Well, different ones with different 
factors in making a decision.

Q. But there would be no way that you could provide 
a negro student wishing to transfer an idea of what quali­
fication or situation he would have to be in in order for you 
to grant his request? A. Well, I wouldn’t pass on any­
thing before it happened. So far it hasn’t happened.

Q. Then your answer to a student who would make such 
a request to you for a written set of standards would be 
that you could not provide such a set of standards before­
hand to them? A. No, I couldn’t.

Q. Do you know whether the Board has ever imblished a
- 58-

set of standards that the students seeking a transfer could 
use as a guide? A. No, they haven’t.

# *

J. A. Hodges—a Defendant—Direct

#



117a

N. L. Oliver—a Defendant—Direct

—59—
N. L. Oliver, h av in g  been f irs t d u ly  sw orn , tes tified  as 

fo llo w s :

Direct Examination by Mr. Bell:

Q. Mr. Oliver, you have been a member of the School 
Board for how many years? A. Nearly ten (10).

Q. Then you passed on each of the transfer applications 
made by negro students? A. Yes.

Q. And you made an individual judgment as to each of 
these students? A. I did.

Q. Did you grant or vote to grant the application of any 
of the students? A. No.

Q. What were the factors that would help you in reach­
ing a decision as to whether—well, what are the factors 
that caused you to deny each of these applications? A. 
Well, we studied each application separately and then the 
bus routing, the subjects that were taught in the schools 
that they were assigned to.

# * * # #
— 60—

 ̂ ^
Q. Would you be able to provide a negro student seeking 

transfer to a white school with a list of the qualifications 
he would have to have before you would vote for his trans­
fer? A. No, we didn’t have any rules.

Q. But would you be able to make up such a list yourself? 
A. No, I ’ve never done it. I’ve never thought about it.

Q. Has the Board—strike that. Do you know whether 
any such list has ever been published? A. No, I don’t.

Q. To your knowledge, do you know whether the Board 
has considered making such a list for the guidance of negro 
students that would want it? A. Not to my knowledge.



118a

N. L. Oliver—a Defendant—Cross 
J. C. Wilkinson—a Defendant—Direct

Mr. Bell: You may cross-examine.
—61—

Cross Examination by Mr. Blackwell:
Q. Mr. Oliver, you could give a written reason why the 

nine applications were rejected, could you not? A. Yes, 
sir.

Mr. Blackwell: That’s all.
Mr. Bell: The reasons that you could provide 

would they be based on your standards or would they 
be based on the Board’s standards?

A. Would be based on my own standards.

Mr. Bell: I have no further questions.

—62—
J. C. W il k in so n , h av in g  been  firs t d u ly  sw orn , te s tified  as 

fo llo w s :

Direct Examination by Mr. Bell:
Q. How long have you been a member of the School 

Board? A. Six (6) years.
Q. And I assume that you voted on each of the transfer 

applications submitted by the negro students? A. I did. 
Q. Did you vote favorably in any of the students cases?

^
A. No, I did not.

Q. What were the standards or criteria that you used in 
denying each of the applications ? A. Well, we used several 
but the main reason, the reason that they gave for wanting 
to transfer was race and we cannot assign them on account 
of race.



119a

Q. In other words, where a student indicated that his 
sole reason for desiring transfer was his wish to be assigned 
to a school where the students were predominantly of an-

—6 3 -
other race, you gave that little or no consideration? A. If 
they want to transfer for race only, I couldn’t accept that.

 ̂ -X*  ̂ ^
Q. If a student provided no other reason for transfer 

other than he wanted to go to a school that was now pre­
dominantly white or all white, would you on that basis re­
ject his application? A. That’s the same question you 
just asked me.

Q. I wasn’t too clear. My first question wasn’t too clear 
and I thought that was a better worded question. A. I 
would still refuse him if that was the only reason. But 
we take each one of them individually and study them and 
if they have any good reason for wanting to transfer then 
we would.

Q. What would you consider as good reason? A. I don’t
- 6 4 -

know. They’ll have to think up their reasons their own 
selves. If I want to transfer, I ’m going to have a reason.

Q. You wouldn’t be able to give them any guide lines 
as to what would impress you? A. I don’t think it would 
be advisable to tell somebody why they would want to 
transfer.

Q. To your knowledge, has the Board ever made any 
such list of standards? A. No.

Q. Have they ever talked about making such a list of 
standards? A. No.

J. C. Wilkinson—a Defendant—Direct

Mr. Bell: That’s all.



120a

Cross Examination by Mr. Blackwell:
Mr. Blackwell: I don’t think I have any ques­

tions.
Mr. Bell: I have no further questions so if Mr. 

Blackwell doesn’t then the indication is that there­
upon the deposition is concluded.

J. C. Wilkinson—a Defendant—Cross

E xcerpts F rom T ranscript op T rial—November 3, 1960
—3—

The Court: The matter for hearing this afternoon 
is John L. Jeffers, et al., versus Thomas H. Whitley, 
Superintendent, et al. Is the plaintiff ready?

Mr. Bell: Yes, we are.
The Court: Is the defendant ready?
Mr. Blackwell: Yes, Your Honor.

* # # # #
—5—# * # # #

The Court: The plaintiff offered in evidence the 
stipulations signed by Counsel for the plaintiff and 
the defendants on September 23, 1959, and filed with 
the Court September 24, 1959, and exhibits therein 
referred to, the defendant having reserved his right 
to object to said stipulations being received in evi­
dence on the ground of materiality, relevancy, and 
competency as set forth in paragraph one of the 
stipulations. The objection to the stipulations and 
exhibits therein referred to being received in evi­
dence is overruled.

Mr. Blackwell: I objected to the stipulations of 
September 23, 1959 specifically on the grounds that 
they were not germane as to this particular action 
here today.



121a

Colloquy

The Court: The objection is overruled,
Mr. Bell: The plaintiff next offers in evidence 

stipulations signed by Counsel for the plaintiff and 
defendant on October 13, 1960 and filed with the 
Court on October 17, 1960 together with exhibits 
thereto attached. I don’t believe you made any reser­
vation on these.

Mr. Blackwell: No.
The Court: Without objection, the stipulations 

and exhibits were received in evidence.
The plaintiff next offered in evidence the deposi­

tions of T. H. Whitley, C. N. Barker, E. J. 
Smith, J. A. Hodges, N. C. Oliver, and J. C. 
Wilkinson taken on August 24, 1960, the origi-

— 6—

nals of which were filed with the Court Octo­
ber 29, 1960 or rather August 29, 1960.

* # # # *
* * * Counsel for both the plaintiff and defendant 
waived right to argue the question of competency 
of any of the questions and answers appearing in 
the depositions. With this reservation and under­
standing, the depositions were received in evidence. 
Do you have any other evidence?

Mr. Bell: Yes, with the permission of the Court, we 
should like to call Thomas Id. Whitley, Superinten­
dent of Public Schools in Caswell County for just 
a few questions.



122a

Thomas H. Whitley—for Plaintiffs—Direct

—7—
T homas H . W h itley , a  w itn ess  fo r  th e  p la in tif f , being  

f irs t d u ly  sw orn , te s tified  a s  fo llow s:

Direct Examination by Mr. Bell:

Q. Will you please state your name to the Court and 
official position. A. Thomas H. Whitley, Superintendent.

Q. Superintendent? A. Yes, Caswell County Schools.
Q. And it is correct, is it not, that you were present for 

the taking of the depositions in this case on August 24,1960? 
A. I was.

Q. During the course of the questioning concerned with 
those depositions, there were several references made to the 
various schools in Caswell County system as being either 
predominantly Negro or predominantly White. Do you 
remember those references? A. Yes, generally.

* * * # #
Q. As to those schools which were referred to as pre­

dominantly Negro or predominantly White in attendance, 
isn’t it a fact that as to the pupils who are assigned and at-

—8—
tending that they exclusively and totally either Negro or 
exclusively and totally White? A. As of the present, yes.

Q. Has that been the situation at least as far back as 
1954? A. Yes.

Q. Did the Board in passing on the applications for 
transfer made by the plaintiffs in this case ask the trans­
fer applicants to submit to any special testing? A. No.

Q. There were no special tests given as to health, for ex­
ample? A. No.

Q. And aptitude? A. No.
Q. And achievement? A. No.



123a

Thomas H. Whitley—for Plaintiffs—Cross 
Clyde N. Barker—for Defendants—Direct

Q. Or achievement ability? A. No.
Q. And psychological status or the psychological testing 

of any? A. No. Could I have a comment? No special 
testing. However, each individual’s records of regular test­
ing, academic grading, and so forth were all reviewed.

Q. But no special tests were given to transfer applicants ? 
A. No special tests.

Mr. Bell: We have no further questions.
-—9—

Cross Examination by Mr. Blackwell :
Q. Are there any schools in Caswell County under the 

present setup which are classified as Negro schools or 
White schools? A. No.

*

Mr. Bell: We have no further evidence.
The Court: Any evidence for the defendant?
Mr. Blackwell: Yes, Your Honor.
(Witness Excused.)

Clyde N. B arker, as  a  w itn ess  fo r  th e  d e fen d an t, being  
f irs t  d u ly  sw orn , te s tified  as fo llo w s :

— 10—

Direct Examination by Mr. Blackwell:
Q. State your full name and position with the Caswell 

County Board of Education. A. Clyde N. Barker, Chair­
man, Caswell County School Board.

Q. Were you present and acting as chairman on the night 
on which the Board considered the applications of Malloy 
Mitchell, Nadine Brown, Lunceford Brown, Sheila Brown,



124a

Charles Jeffers, Alexander Jeffers, and Sorene Jeffers? 
A. I  was.

* * * * *
—12—

* * * * *
Q. State, Mr. Barker, whether or not Caswell County 

Training School, which Malloy Mitchell was attending, is 
accredited by the Southern College and Secondary Schools? 
A. It is, and it is the only school in our County that is 
accredited.

Q. I believe you stated that the mother of this minor 
stated that she intended or her son intended to attend col­
lege?

* * * * *
Mr. Bell: Well, we will withdraw our objection.

*  #  *  *  #

— 13—

*  *  #  *  *

Q. As to the application of Nadine Brown, Lunceford 
Brown, and Sheliah Brown, are those the three children of 
Jasper Brown and his wife, Othella Brown? A. Yes.

Q. Did you on June 9 vote to deny these three minor 
plaintiff application for transfer? A. I did.

Q. Will you state to the Court the reason for your de­
cision of vote ? A. These students live, I reckon, about four 
miles from Bartley-Yancy, three or four miles, and they 
were living two and a half miles on a dead end road; and 
on that particular road, each student attends Caswell 
County Training School, and the Caswell County Training 
School bus goes within approximately half a mile of the 
Brown house; and the Bartley-Yancy bus is not routed 
on that road whatever.

Clyde N. Barker—for Defendants—Direct



125a

Q. As a matter of fact, people living on that two and a 
half miles of road are people of the Negro race? A. Yes.

Q. And the children they have attend-—
# # *  # *

The Witness: He lives on this dead end road. It
—14—

is a state-maintained road, but the Board didn’t 
think it was justified for two school buses to oper­
ate on the same road approximately at the same time, 
and changing the plan that was setup; and then on 
top of that, you might say when we assigned Mm to 
Caswell County Training School that we did all we 
could for the student because that is the best school 
he could have got.

Q. That is the best school in the county? A. That is 
the way I looked at it.

Q. As to the application of Charles Jeffers, Alexander 
Jeffers, and Sylveen Jeffers, what action did the Board take 
in regard to those, what action did you take specifically in 
regard to the application? A. Well, they were turned 
down.

Q. Did you vote for it? A. I did.
Q. The denial? A. I did.
Q. What reason did you have for voting for the denial? 

A. The Jeffers family wasn’t represented, and it looked like 
the parents showed mighty little interest.

Q. They gave no specific reason or anything? A. Some­
one said he was too busy to come. They lived approximately 
ten miles from either school. They were assigned to Cas­
well.

Q. Caswell and Bartley-Yancy schools are in the same 
village? A. Yes.

Clyde N. Barker—for Defendants—Direct



126a

Clyde N. Barker—for Defendants—Direct

—15—
Q. As to the application of Charles Saunders and Fred 

Saunders, were you at the meeting at which the application 
for transfer was heard? A. I was.

Q. What was the action you individually took? A. We 
rejected the application.

Q. Did you vote for the denial? A. I did.
Q. What reasons did you have for your vote or decision? 

A. Well, I think at least four and maybe five Saunders chil­
dren go to one school, and they had all been assigned to that 
school. And he asked for a transfer.

Q. Did he in his application for transfer request any 
particular school he wanted the children to attend? A. Not 
that I know of.

Q. How far is the school to which the Saunders children, 
Charles and Fred, assigned, how far is that from the home? 
A. About five miles; I reckon four or five miles.

Q. Is there a school near their home which is attended 
exclusively by children of the white race? A. There is a 
school between one and two miles nearer their home.

Q. Not more than two miles is that? A. It is less than 
two miles. He lives right on a hard surfaced road, and both 
buses pass right by in front of his house, one going that

- 1 6 -
way, and the other going the other way. The Dotman School 
is a larger school than the Murphy school. This will show 
you a comparison. The Dotman school is a $300,000 school 
and the Murphy school is about $100,000.

Q. How many teachers do you have in the Dotman school? 
A. We have about twelve teachers at Dotman and six at 
Murphy. The Dotman school draws from a much larger 
area than the Murphy school. It is natural for the students 
to travel further to the Dotman school than to the Murphy



127a

school, because it is the biggest plant, and operates in a 
much larger way.

* * * * *
— 17—

* * * * *

Q. There were no reasons set forth whatsoever for any of 
these students other than contained in the application? A. 
That’s right.

Q. And that was simply they wanted to go to an inte­
grated school? A. That is what is in the file.

Mr. Blackwell: That’s all.

Cross Examination by Mr. Bell:
*  *  *  *  *

— 18—

#  *  *  *  *

Q. And for the 1960-61 school year, no Negro child was 
assigned to the Murphy school? A. He was not.

Q. Nor any Negro child assigned to any of the other 
schools in your County which are and have been operated 
exclusively for white students? A. No.

—19—
Q. I think you indicated in the deposition and also here 

this afternoon that almost without exception each of these 
Negro plaintiffs in their request for transfer made refer­
ence to their desSe to be placed in a school without regard 
to race, creed, or color?

*  *  *  *  *

Clyde N. Barker—for Defendants—Cross

A. That’s right.



128a

Clyde N. Barker—for Defendants—Cross

— 20—

* * * * *
Q. You referred a few moments ago to plaintiff Malloy 

Mitchell, who you indicated had his request denied for 
transfer because the school to which he requested transfer 
did not offer French, and that you thought it was not ad-

— 21—

visable for him to change his school in his last year. Isn’t 
it correct, first of all, that this same student has been mak­
ing this same request for transfer for the last three years ? 
A. Not to us.

Mr. Bell: I think the record shows that. 
* * * * *

The Witness: He might have been named in the 
first suit.

By Mr. Bell:

Q. Did the Board then consider his desire to go to a 
desegregated school far greater than his desire to continue 
m taking French in making a decision in his case? A. His 
mother didn’t say that.

Q. He did file an application for transfer from one school 
to another? A. He did. He filed similar applications for 
the last several years as required by the Pupil Assignment 
law. He filed one before.

Q. But the Board didn’t consider that this was as im­
portant as him continuing a school where he could have 
French? A. I dont know what the Board considered.

Q. You didn t consider that was as important? A. I 
was considering the welfare of the student, and we assigned



129a

him to the best school we had. What more could we do for 
him or could I do for him?

Q. You have already indicated that the Caswell County
— 22-

Training school, which is populated exclusively by Negroes, 
is the best school in the County? A. Yes, and not by a 
small margin either.

Q. Would you say then that so long as this condition 
exists, that the Negro High School is the best one in the 
County, that no Negro— That you will deny the application 
of every Negro to transfer to another school in the County? 
A. I can’t say. I don’t know what I will do.

Q. But this was a factor in your decision? A. That was 
aJpig iaeloxm  my deeisieftr—

(Ji You-aIso indicated it was a factor in some of these 
others? A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell us at what point it will not be a factor in 
your decision? A. I can’t tell you that.

Q. Can you tell us what standards or what type of situa­
tion will change your mind in this decision as to the Negro 
plaintiffs and others in a like situation; isn’t there anything 
you can tell us, that you can tell those plaintiffs, any stand­
ards that you can set forth that will let them know when 
they will be eligible to transfer from Caswell County to 
another high school in the County? A. I can’t tell you that.

Q. You stated in regard to the Brown children that the 
bus that takes them to Caswell County is the only bus that

- 2 3 -
stops on this dead end County road? A. Yes.

Q. And that this was a factor in your determining not to 
transfer them to the Bartley-Yaney school although the 
schools are pretty close together, and it is not possible for

Clyde N. Barher—for Defendants—Cross



130a

the Board to change the schedule of the Caswell County bus 
so that they can attend the Bartley-Yancy school?

# * # # #
A. It doesn’t go there. It goes to the training school.

Q. But the two schools are very close together? A. Yes; 
very close together.

Q. Would it or would it not be possible under the school 
legulations for the Caswell County bus to take students and 
drop them off at the Bartley-Yancy school, drop them off 
at the Caswell school for attendance at the Bartley-Yancy 
school? A. That would be possible.

Q. If that is so, why was it the basis for your denial, the 
fact that the Caswell Training bus was the only bus which 
went down this dead end road? A. You wouldn’t want all 
of them to get off of this school bus and walk over to the 
other one.

Q. But it would be possible under the school regulations
—24—

for the Brown children to do that? A. That is correct.
Q. They could take the bus which you indicated was the 

only bus which made this out of the way trip up this dead 
end road, and it could take them to the area of the two 
schools ?

* * * * *

Q. On the Saunders children, you indicated Charlie or 
Fred, that Charlie and Fred were rejected even though the 
school to which they are presently assigned is five miles 
from their home, and another school which is exclusively 
used by White is less than two miles from their home? A.
I didn’t say that. I said there was approximately two miles 
difference.

Clyde N. Barker—for Defendants—Cross



131a

Clyde N. Barker—for Defendants—Cross

Q. Would you say that we. could provide to the Negro 
residents of Caswell County the standard that where the 
White school which is.locn.terl closer..fixi±Lai r  home is smaller 

, than the Negro school to which they are assigned, then there 
...is no use for them to file for t ransfer,, that they are going 
to, for that reason, be continued to be assigned to the Negro

—25—
school? A. I  couldn’t say that.

Q. You admit that was done in this case? A. That was 
a factor.

Q. Was that a substantial part? A. It was.

Q. Would you enumerate some of the other factors. A. 
Well, I said another part of it was that the family was 
attending the same school.

Q. The fact that these members of the family had applied 
for transfer would kind of go against that? Wouldn’t it in­
dicate that that is where they wanted to go? A. It would 
indicate where the parents wanted them to go.

# # # # #
Q. Sir, what I am trying to find out is wrhat the basis of 

the Board decision is here. I would like for you to tell us the 
factors the Board used in denying each of these plaintiffs 
when they came before you. I am speaking now in refer-

—26—
ence to the Saunders children. A. We considered the wel­
fare of the students.

Q. One of the factors you considered was size of the 
school? A. That’s right.

Q. The children in this family were assigned to a Negro



132a

school further away to which they had not requested assign­
ment, is that correct? A. That is correct.

* * * * *
Q. Well, would there have been a different decision as 

to the vote on the Brown children if instead of only two of 
them, that all of them had requested, that is, the Saunders 
children, that instead of only two of them, that all of them 
had requested a transfer to this Murphy school? A. It 
might have been.

* * * * *
—27—

* * * * *
I

By Mr. Bell:

Q. Isn’t it correct that in making the initial assignments 
i for the 1960-61 term that all White pupils were assigned 
j to schools exclusively attended by Whites, and all Negroes 

were initially assigned to schools exclusively attended by 
Negroes? A. They were assigned according to where they 
were before.

Q. And last year the students were assigned as to where 
they were assigned before, is that correct? A. That is

\  correct.
Q. And the same procedure was followed back at least to 

1954? A. It was.

—28—* * * * *
The Court: How long have you been a member of 

the School Board?
The Witness: I have been on the School Board 

about four terms, I reckon.
* * * * *

Clyde N. Barker—for Defendants—Cross



133a

The Court: Eight years?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: During that time have the school 

children in Caswell County been assigned initially
—29—

with the White children to schools attended exclu­
sively by Whites, by white children, and the Negro 
children to schools attended solely by Negro children?

The Witness: Yes.
The Court: From 1952 down through this year? ,
The Witness: Until the Pupil Assignment Act, I 

don’t know whether there was much assignment or 
not.

The Court: In other words, since 1952 you haven’t 
had any Negro children attending schools attended 
by White children, and you haven’t had any White 
children attending schools attended exclusively by 
Negro students?

The Witness: That’s right.
* # # # *

Clyde N. Barker—for Defendants—Cross



134a

1st th e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
F or t h e  M iddle D istrict of N orth  Carolina 

G reensboro D ivision  

Civil No. 1079-G

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion

[ same t it l e}

C. 0. Pearson and William A. Marsh, Jr., 
of Durham, North Carolina, and 
Jack Greenberg, of New York, N. Y., 
for Plaintiffs.

Robert R. Blackwell, of Yanceyville,
North Carolina, for Defendants.

E dw in  M. S tanley , Chief Judge.

This action was commenced on December 10, 1956, by 
twenty-three adult plaintiffs, individually and as parents 
and next friends of forty-three minor plaintiffs, on behalf 
of themselves and all other citizens and residents of Cas­
well County, North Carolina, similarly situated. All plain­
tiffs are members of the Negro race. Named defendants 
were the Superintendent of the Public Schools of Caswell 
County, the individual members of the Caswell County 
School Board, the State Superintendent of Public Instruc­
tion, and the individual members of the State Board of 
Education. In an opinion filed September 12, 1958, it was 
ruled that the motion of the plaintiffs for leave to file 
supplemental complaint, alleging that they had exhausted



135a

all administrative remedies under the North Carolina laws 
relating to the enrollment and assignment of pupils with­
out obtaining the relief sought, should be granted, and 
that the action should be dismissed as to the State Super­
intendent of Public Instruction and the individual members 
of the State Board of Education. Jeffers v. Whitley, 165
F. Supp. 951 (N. D. N. C. 1958). The earlier history of 
this litigation, including the allegations in the proposed 
supplemental complaint, may be found in that opinion.

In its answer to the supplemental complaint, the defen­
dant Board alleged that on July 16, 1957, following the 
assignment of pupils to the Caswell County public schools 
for the 1957-1958 school year, the plaintiffs in apt time 
applied for reassignment to other schools; that the defen­
dant Board denied each request for reassignment; that the 
plaintiffs thereafter timely tiled requests for a hearing 
pursuant to the provisions of the state statutes relating to 
the enrollment and assignment of pupils; that the plain­
tiffs were duly notified that the requested hearings would 
be held on February 3, 1957; and that the defendant Board 
met on said date for the purpose of conducting said hear­
ings, but that due to the fact that neither of the plaintiffs, 
nor anyone representing them, appeared at said hearings, 
same were not held.

Following the submission of interrogatories to the de­
fendants, and the filing of certain stipulations, the plain­
tiffs, on October 19, 1959, moved the court for a stay of 
the proceedings for the purpose of allowing them an op­
portunity to exhaust their administrative remedies in the 
manner prescribed in McKissick v. Durham City Board of 
Education, 176 F. Supp. 3 (M. D. N. C. 1959). As a reason 
for said motion, the plaintiffs alleged that at the time they 
pursued their administrative remedies before the defen-

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



136a

dant Board the court had not decided the McKissick case 
and the case of Holt v. Raleigh City Board of Education, 
164 F. Supp. 853 (E. D. N. C. 1958), affirmed 4 Cir., 265 
F. 2d 95 (1959) cert. den. 361 U. S. 818, 80 S. Ct. 59, 4 
L. Ed. 2d 63 (1959), holding that it was necessary for ap­
plicants for reassignment to personally appear at hearings 
conducted by School Boards.

Prior to a ruling on plaintiffs’ motion to stay proceed­
ings, the parties, on October 27, 1959, stipulated that coun­
sel for the plaintiffs would submit to the defendant Board, 
not later than March 1, 1960, the names and addresses of 
all the original plaintiffs who were still attending the public 
schools of Caswell County and who still desired reassign­
ment to another school; that such plaintiffs would be noti­
fied at the end of the 1959-1960 school year as to the schools 
to which they had been assigned for the 1960-1961 school 
year; that such of said plaintiffs still desiring reassignment 
to another school would timely file an application for re­
assignment with the defendant Board; that the defendant 
Board would meet within ten days thereafter and consider 
any such requests for reassignment; and that if any re­
quests for reassignment were denied and a hearing was 
desired, such hearing would be held within ten days.

An order was entered on July 22, 1960, granting the 
motion of the plaintiffs for k^ve^to^le a second supple­
mental complaint alleging tffct  ninfr-’ftf the original minor 
plaintiffs had been assigned to all Negro schools for the 
1960-1961 school year, and that after the exhaustion of 
their administrative remedies their applications for reas­
signment had been denied.

The case was tried by the court without a jury on No­
vember 3, 1960. At the conclusion of the trial, the court 
gave the parties a specified time within which to file pro­

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



137a

posed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and briefs, after 
which oral arguments would be heard.

The requests for findings of fact, conclusions of law, 
and briefs of the parties having been received, the court, 
after considering the pleadings and evidence, including ex­
hibits, answers to interrogatories and stipulations filed, and 
briefs and oral arguments of the parties, now makes and 
files herein its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 
separately stated:

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion

F indings of F act

1. At all times pertinent, the minor plaintiffs still inter­
ested in this litigation were citizens and residents of Cas­
well County, North Carolina, and each possessed all neces­
sary qualifications for admission to the public schools of 
Caswell County.

2. The defendant Board maintains and generally super­
vises the operation of the public schools of Caswell County, 
and in the operation of said schools possesses such powers 
as are conferred by Chapter 115 of the General Statutes of 
North Carolina.

3. The defendant Board operates and maintains five 
elementary schools and__ t̂t&^consolidated elementary and 
high school atten^efl^SfilasTvely by Negro students, and 
five elementary schools and.,,Jour-consolidated elementary 
and high schools attended^exclusiygjy-^y white students.

4. Approximately six thousand pupils are enrolled in 
the Caswell County public schools, about fifty-three per 
cent of whom are Negroes and forty-seven per cent of 
whom are whites.



138a

5. Some of the plaintiffs have made repeated efforts 
since 1955 to prevail upon the defendant Board to de­
segregate its public schools of Caswell County, but these 
efforts have been without success.

6. At the end of the 1959-1960 school year, sixteen of 
the original minor plaintiffs were still attending the public 
schools of Caswell County, and on May 31, 1960, all were 
assigned, by notification on their respective report cards, 
to all Negro schools for the 1960-1961 school year.

7. By stipulation of counsel for the plaintiffs and the 
defendants, it was agreed that the court in the final dis­
position of this case would only consider those minor plain­
tiffs who timely filed an application with the defendant 
Board for reassignment to another school for the 1960-1961 
school year.

8. On June 9, 1960, applications for reassignment to 
schools previously attended solely by white students were 
timely filed on behalf of^nine of the original forty-three 
minor plaintiffs, namely: Samuel Maloy Mitchell, Charlie 
Jeffers, Alexander Jeffers, Sylveen Jeffers, Nathan Brown, 
Lunsford Brown, Sheliah Brown, Charlie Sanders, Jr., 
Fred Sanders. Except for Charlie Sanders, Jr. and Fred 
Sanders, it was requested that each of said minor plain­
tiffs be transferred from the Caswell County Training 
School, a school attended solely by Negro students, to 
Bartlett Yancey School, a school attended solely by white 
students. With respect to Charlie Sanders, Jr. and Fred 
Sanders, request was made that they be transferred from 
New Dotmond Elementary School, a school attended solely 
by Negro students, to a “school nearest their home, based

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



139a

upon a non-segregated system without regard to race or 
color.”

9. The defendant Board thereafter met and gave sepa­
rate consideration to each of said applications. After con­
sidering the record of each applicant, “along with school 
bus routings, location of student’s home, and information 
in the school records, and on the application form,” all of 
said applications for reassignment were rejected, and the 
parents of said minor plaintiffs were duly notified of the 
action of the Board.

10. Bequests for hearings before the defendant Board 
on the denial of said applications for reassignment were 
thereafter timely and properly filed on behalf of the said 
nine minor plaintiffs. The requests were granted and the 
parents of said minor plaintiffs were duly notified of the 
date and place of the hearings.

11. On July 6, 1960, hearings were conducted with re­
spect to the applications of Samuel Maloy Mitchell, Charlie 
Jeffers, Alexander Jeffers, Sylveen Jeffers, Nathan Brown, 
Lunsford Brown and Sheliah Brown. George Mitchell and 
wife, Ada Mitchell, adult plaintiffs and parents of Samuel 
Maloy Mitchell, and Jasper Brown and wife, Odessa 
Brown, adult plaintiffs and parents of Nathan Brown, 
Lunsford Brown and Sheliah Brown, were present at said 
hearings. Said plaintiffs were also represented by their 
counsel, C. 0. Pearson, Esquire, who read a memorandum 
protesting the operation of a segregated school system in 
Caswell County.

12. Neither Charlie Jeffers, Alexander Jeffers, nor 
Sylveen Jeffers, minor plaintiffs, nor either of their par­

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



140a

ents, John M. Jeffers and wife, Annie L. Jeffers, were 
present at said hearings, although they had been properly 
notified of the place and hour of the hearing. The only 
explanation of their absence was that given by Jasper 
Brown, who stated he had gone to see John M. Jeffers “for 
the purpose of his attending this meeting and that Mr. 
Jeffers had stated that he was too busy to attend the meet­
ing.”

13. Following the hearings, the defendant Board again 
rejected the application for reassignment filed on behalf 
of each of said minor plaintiffs. The board minutes recite 
that this action was taken after making considerable study 
of the applications and requests for hearing, and after 
“further discussion of the talks” with those present.

14. On July 15, 1960, the defendant Board held hear­
ings in connection with the applications for reassignment 
filed on behalf of Charlie Sanders, Jr. and Fred Sanders. 
Charlie H. Sanders, adult plaintiff and father of said minor 
plaintiffs, was present at the hearing. Said plaintiffs were 
also represented at the hearing by their counsel, William 
A. Marsh, Jr., Esquire. Following the hearings, the ap­
plication for reassignment filed on behalf of each of said 
minor plaintiffs was rejected. The board minutes recite 
that this action was taken after a further study of the 
information contained in the applications, and other avail­
able information.

15. Caswell County Training School, a high school at­
tended solely by Negro students, and Bartlett Yancey 
School, a high school attended solely by white students, 
are both located in the town of Yanceyville, and are about 
one and one-half blocks apart. Caswell County Training

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



141a

School is the only school in Caswell County accredited by 
the Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary 
Schools.

16. Nathan Brown, Lunsford Brown and Sheliah Brown 
live about five and one-half miles from Yanceyville, and 
at the end of a dead-end country road. This country road 
is about two and one-half miles in length and all the school 
children residing on the road attend Caswell County Train­
ing School. A Caswell County Training School bus goes 
within four-tenths of a mile of the Brown home, but it is 
two and one-half miles from the Brown home to the nearest 
school bus serving the Bartlett Yancey School.

17. New Dotmond Elementary School, an elementary 
school in Caswell County attended solely by Negro students, 
is located about four and two-tenths miles from the home 
of Charlie Sanders, Jr. and Fred Sanders. Murphy Ele­
mentary School, an elementary school in Caswell County 
attended solely by white students, is located about two and 
four-tenths miles from the home of Charlie Sanders, Jr. 
and Fred Sanders. The Sanders children ride a school bus 
which comes by their home to New Dotmond Elementary 
School. Another school bus going to Murphy Elementary 
School also passes in front of their home.

18. All of the nine minor plaintiffs still involved in this 
litigation travel to and from school by school buses pro­
vided by the defendant Board, and this would still be true 
had their applications for reassignment been granted.

19. Samuel Maloy Mitchell was graduated from the Cas­
well County Training School in May 1961, and is no longer 
eligible to attend the public schools of Caswell County.

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



142a

Charlie Jeffers has previously quit school and is no longer 
enrolled in any of the Caswell County public schools.

20. The defendant Board has never put in writing any 
definite criteria or standards by which to judge applications 
for change of pupil assignment. However, it was testified 
that the board members considered all pertinent informa­
tion, such as the pupil’s individual record, accumulated 
folder, residence, the reason assigned as to why a transfer 
was desired, and any other information that the board 
could obtain, in determining whether to approve or deny 
a request for transfer. It was further testified that the 
same tests were applied to both Negro and white students 
seeking a transfer.

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion

D iscussion

Although this litigation has been pending for almost 
five years, and many of the minor plaintiffs are no longer 
attending the public schools of Caswell County, it should 
be noted that in the original complaint the plaintiffs com­
pletely ignored the North Carolina Assignment and Enroll­
ment of Pupils Act,1 and failed to allege that they had 
exhausted, or had even attempted to exhaust, their admin­
istrative remedies under that act. The original complaint 
is couched in almost the identical language as the com­
plaint in Covington v. Edwards, 165 F. Supp. 957, (M. D. 
N. C. 1958), affirmed 4 Cir., 264 F. 2d 780 (1959), cert. den. 
361 U. S. 840, 80 S. Ct. 78, 4 L. Ed. 2d 79 (1959), where 
it was held the complaint should be dismissed for failure 
to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On

1 Section 115-176 through Section 115-179 General Statutes of North 
Carolina.



143a

February 10, 1958, the plaintiffs, recognizing their re­
sponsibility to comply with the provisions of the state law 
relating to the enrollment and assignment of pupils in 
public schools, sought and obtained leave to file a supple­
mental complaint alleging that with respect to the 1957- 
1958 school year they had “exhausted all administrative 
remedies, as required by the pupil assignment law.” Jef­
fers v. Whitley, 165 F. Supp. 951 (M. D. N. C. 1958). It 
later developed that in attempting to exhaust their admin­
istrative remedies with respect to the 1957-1958 school year, 
none of the plaintiffs, either adult or minor, personally at­
tended the board hearings which were held in connection 
with their reassignment applications. On October 19, 1959, 
the plaintiffs moved for a stay of the proceedings for the 
purpose of allowing them to exhaust their administrative 
remedies in the manner prescribed in Holt v. Raleigh City 
Board of Education, 164 F. Supp. 853 (E. I). N. C. 1958), 
affirmed 4 Cir., 265 F. 2d 95 (1959), cert. den. 361 U. S. 818, 
80 S. Ct. 59, 4 L. Ed. 2d 63 (1959), and McKissicU v. Dur­
ham City Board of Education, 176 F. Supp. 3 (M. D. N. C. 
1959). Pending a decision on this motion, it was agreed 
that the final disposition of this case would be limited to 
an adjudication of the rights of those minor plaintiffs who 
exhausted their administrative remedies with respect to the 
1960-1961 school year.

We are now concerned with the constitutional rights 
of Samuel Maloy Mitchell, Charlie Jeffers, Alexander Jef­
fers, Sylveen Jeffers, Nathan Brown, Lunsford Brown, 
Sheliah Brown, Charlie Sanders, Jr. and Fred Sanders. 
Since Samuel Maloy Mitchell was graduated from the Cas­
well County Training School earlier this year, and is no 
longer eligible to attend the public schools of Caswell 
County, an adjudication of his rights is no longer neces­

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



144a

sary. With respect to Charlie Jeffers, Alexander Jeffers 
and Sylveen Jeffers, it cannot be seriously contended that 
they have exhausted their administrative remedies under 
the state law relating to the enrollment and assignment of 
pupils. The plaintiffs recognized their responsibility to 
comply with these laws, and recognized that they would 
be delinquent if they failed to attend the board hearing in 
connection with their applications for reassignment, when 
they moved on October 19, 1959, for a stay of proceedings 
to allow them to exhaust their administrative remedies 
in the manner prescribed in the Holt and McKissicJc eases. 
These cases hold that students seeking reassignment are 
delinquent in failing to attend hearings before school 
boards, and that appearance by counsel is insufficient. The 
only logical conclusion to be drawn is that the parents of 
the Jeffers children no longer desired that their children 
be reassigned to another school. This is especially true 
since Jasper Brown, one of the other adult plaintiffs, 
specifically requested John M. Jeffers to attend the board 
hearings and he declined to do so for the reason that he 
was “too busy” to attend the meeting. Additionally, Char­
lie Jeffers is no longer attending the public schools of 
Caswell County. This leaves for consideration the Brown 
children, namely, Nathan Brown, Lunsford Brown, and 
Sheliah Brown, and the Sanders children, namely, Charlie 
Sanders, Jr. and Fred Sanders.

These remaining plaintiffs have made an adjudication of 
their rights most difficult by reason of the fact that the 
action has been maintained throughout as a class action, 
and the lack of pertinent data furnished in their applica­
tions. In the original and two supplemental complaints, 
the plaintiffs pray that a three-judge court be convened 
pursuant to Title 28, Sections 2281 and 2284, United States

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



145a

Code, for the purpose of declaring unconstitutional and 
restraining the enforcement of certain provisions of the 
constitution and statutes of North Carolina which require 
or permit racial segregation in the public schools, and that 
the defendants be required to promptly present a plan of 
desegregation which will expeditiously desegregate the pub­
lic schools of Caswell County. There is no prayer that the 
individual rights of the plaintiffs be adjudicated, except 
as those rights are common to all other citizens of Caswell 
County similarly situated. While the Brown children ap­
plied for a transfer to the Bartlett Yancey School, they 
gave no relative distances between their home and this 
school and the school to which assigned, school bus rout­
ings, or any other pertinent information. The only reason 
they gave for requesting a transfer was To be in an_ inte­

grated school system. The Sanders children did not desig-' 
nate any school to which transfer was desired, the relative 
distances of any of the schools from their home, avail­
ability of bus facilities, or other pertinent data, but simply 
stated they desired to transfer to a school “nearest their 
home, based upon a lion-segregated system without regard 
to race or color.” The plaintiffs do not now propose any 
findings or conclusions with respect to any particular school 
which the minor plaintiffs desire to attend, but rather 
proHQ.se that the court, by virtue of the action taken on 
the applications of these minor plaintiffs, and the fact that 
the defendant Board is still operating a segregated school 
system, require defendants to promptly present a plan of 
desegregation**wiiicJb. wilr~expeditlously desegregate the

"  schools of Caswell -----
There has been a total failure on the part of the plaintiffs 

to demonstrate the necessity for convening a three-judge 
court. The defendants concede that any provisions of the

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



146a

constitution or statutes of North Carolina requiring the 
segregation of pupils in public schools are invalid, and 
deny that any applications for reassignment have been 
considered on the basis of race. To convene a three-judge 
court could only result in a restatement of legal principles 
that have been stated time and again. Covington v. Mont­
gomery County School Board, 139 F. Supp. 161 (M. D. 
N. C. 1956); Jeffers v. Whitley, 165 F. Supp. 951 (M. D. 
N. C. 1958); Constantian v. Anson County, 244 N. C. 221, 
93 S. E. 2d 163 (1956); McKissick v. Durham City Board 
of Education, 176 F. Supp. 3 (M. D. N. C. 1959). It has 
also been repeatedly held that injunctive relief in suits of 
this type will be granted only after the exhaustion of ad­
ministrative remedies, and that rights must be asserted as 
individuals, not as a class or group. Carson v. Board of 
Education of McDowell County, 4 Cir., 227 F. 2d 789 
(1955); Carson v. Warlick, 4 Cir., 238 F. 2d 724 (1956), 
cert. den. 353 U. S. 910, 77 S. Ct. 665, 1 L. Ed. 2d 664 
(1957); Covington v. Edwards, 165 F. Supp. 957 (M. D. 
N. C. 1958), affirmed! Cir., 264 F. 2d 780 (1959), cert. den. 
361 U. S. 840, 80 S. Ct. 78, 4 L. Ed. 2d 79 (1959); Holt v. 
Raleigh City Board of Education, 164 F. Supp. 853 (E. D. 
N. C. 1958), affirmed 4 Cir., 265 F. 2d 95 (1959), cert. den. 
361 IT. S. 818, 80 S. Ct. 59, 4 L. Ed. 2d 63 (1959); and 
McKissick v. Durham City Board of Education, 176 F. 
Supp. 3 (M. D. N. C. 1959). Notwithstanding the plain 
holdings of these cases, the plaintiffs still chose to prosecute 
this action as a class action and insist on the convening 
of a three-judge court. Their position becomes irrecon­
cilable when one reads the Holt and McKissick cases, the 
decisions the plaintiffs wanted to comply with when they 
moved for a stay of proceedings, and then examines the 
original and supplemental complaints filed in this action

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



147a

and the applications filed on behalf of the minor plaintiffs 
in 1960. Plaintiffs’ argument that they are entitled to an 
order desegregating all the public schools of Caswell County 
since the defendant Board has taken no steps to put an end 
to enforced segregation, rather than being required to pur­
sue their rights as individuals, is completely and effectively 
answered in Covington v. Edwards, 264 P. 2d 780 (1959), 
cert. den. 361 U. S. 840, 80 S. Ct. 78, 4 L. Ed. 2d 79 (1959), 
as follows:

“We are advertent to the circumstances upon which the 
plaintiffs rest their case, namely, that the County Board 
has taken no steps to put an end to the planned segrega­
tion of the pupils in the public schools of the county 
but, on the contrary, in 1955 and subsequent years, 
resolved that the practices of enrollment and assign­
ment of pupils for the ensuing year should be similar 
to those in use in the current year. If there were no 
remedy for such inaction, the federal court might well 
make use of its injunctive power to enjoin the violation 
of the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs but, as 
we have seen, the State statutes give to the parents 
of any child dissatisfied with the school to which he is 
assigned the right to make application for a transfer 
and the right to be heard on the question by the Board. 
If after the hearing and final decision he is not satis­
fied, and can show that he has been discriminated 
against because of his race, he may then apply to the 
federal court for relief. In the pending case, however, 
that course was not taken, although it was clearly 
outlined in our two prior decisions, and the decision 
of the District Court in dismissing the case was there­
fore correct.”

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



148a

It is manifest that the plaintiffs have chosen to ignore 
the many decisions upholding the constitutionality of the 
North Carolina pupil assignment law, hoping that they 
will be successful, in either this or the appellate courts, in 
getting the law stricken from the statute books. Just as 
the defendant Board is bound by the decision of the Su­
preme Court in the Brown case, so are the plaintiffs bound 
by the court decisions prescribing procedures to be followed 
in cases of this type before applying to the courts for in­
junctive relief. A court of equity requires good faith on 
the part of all litigants, and plaintiffs in cases of this type 
are no exception.

The constitutional rights of citizens should be adjudi­
cated as quickly as possible. Delay can often result in a 
denial of rights. This case is a typical example of the 
great delay that can result from the failure of plaintiffs 
to perform the simple duties imposed upon them by state 
law before applying to the courts for relief, and by failing 
to seek an adjudication of their rights as individuals. The 
difficult position of the court is that if the plaintiffs are 
permitted to completely ignore the decisions they dislike, 
statutes and procedures which have received judicial ap­
proval will be slowly whittled away and rendered com­
pletely meaningless.

What has been said is not to be construed as condoning 
dilatory tactics or evasions on the part of school boards 
which result in a perpetuation of enforced segregation in' 
public schools. The record in this case strongly indicates 
that some of the minor plaintiffs, particularly the Sanders 
children, were denied reassignment solely on the basis of 
their race. The court would not hesitate to declare their 
right to attend the school of their choice without regard 
to their race if they had first made a good faith effort to

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



149a

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion

gain admission to a particular school, and had sought a 
declaration of their constitutional rights rather than the 
constitutional rights of the class of persons they repre­
sent. New Dotmond Elementary School, the all Negro 
school to which the Sanders children were assigned, is 
almost twice as far from their home as the Murphy 
Elementary School. School buses serving both schools go 
by their front door. The principal reasons given for deny 
ing their request for transfer were that other children 
living in the home had not sought a transfer to another 
school, that New Dotmond Elementary School was much 
larger than Murphy Elementary School, and that transfer 
was sought solely because of race. It should be borne in 
mind, however, that-Jdie Sanders children did not seek
admission to the Murphv Elementary School. While the 
record indicates that Murphy Elementary School is the 
school nearest theif~Eome, the cduaTMsMieMFant to declare 
their right to attend Murphy Elementary School when 
they did not see fit to designate this school as the one 
which they desired to attend and as the one nearest their 
home. Had they applied for a transfer to the Murphy 
Elementary School, and had sought a protection of their 
rights as individuals, it is reasonably clear that their ap­
plications should have been granted. The fact that all the 
public schools of Caswell County are still completely 
segregated is an indication that transfers are being denied 
TmThe basis of race, and this is a factor properly to be 

“cdnSidered when ultiliiSTely passing upon the applications 
NjFffllMninof plaintiffs.

The record is less clear with respect to the Brown 
children. The Caswell County Training School bus passes 
within four-tenths of a mile of their home. They would 
have to walk two and one-half miles to reach the Bartlett



150a

Yancey School bus. It is not feasible for both buses to 
travel over this two and one-half mile dirt road which 
dead-ends at the Brown home. There are no other children 
living on this road who attend, or who have applied for 
admission to, the Bartlett Yancey School. It is true that 
buses serving both schools go within a block and a half of 
each other in the town of Yanceyville, but for buses to 
carry children to both schools would create serious ad­
ministrative problems. Since both schools are approxi­
mately the same distance from the Brown home, distance 
as a factor is eliminated. Additionally, the only reason 
given by the Brown children as to why a transfer was 
desired was to permit them to “transfer to an integrated 

_school system, regardless of race, creed or color/’ Ptipife— 
have no inherent right To be transferred simply because"

- of their race...TEey~~dnr have the" right to have their ap-
plications considered without regard to race or color. As 
has been repeatedly stated, the Constitution of the United 
States, and nothing said in the Brown decision, requires an 
intermingling of the races, or gives to a child the right 
to attend a school of his choice solely because of his race. 
The simple requirement is that no child shall be denied 
admission to a school of his choice on the basis of race or 
color. In other words, the constitution does not require 
integration, it merely forbids discrimination. Briggs v. 
Elliott, 132 F. Supp. 776 (E. D. S. C. 1955); Thompson v. 
County School Board of Arlington County, 144 F. Supp. 
239 (E. D. Va. 1956). Upon reflection, it is perfectly 
clear that if school children were permitted to go to schools 
of their choice, without regard to attendance areas, dis­
tances, school bus routings, and other pertinent factors, 
some of the schools would be crowded beyond their capacity 
and some would be practically vacant. The burden is upon

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



151a

plaintiffs seeking a transfer to establish by a preponderance 
of the evidence that they were denied a constitutional right 
because of their race.

If the remaining minor plaintiffs, that is the Brown 
and Sanders~cEnHren7~acTu^ a transfer to another
school for the 1961-1962 school year, and will file applica­
tions for such transfer, setting out the schools they desire 
to attend, and demonstrate that they would be entitled to 
attend such schools if they were white children, the court 
will advance the case on the docket and see that their 
rights are fully adjudicated and determined in advance 
of the new school term. Amendment to the prayer for 
relief in the supplemental complaint filed on July 27, 1960, 
seeking an adjudication of the individual rights of the 
plaintiffs, will also be necessary.

C onclusions of L aw

1. The court has jurisdiction of the parties and of the 
subject matter.

2. Samuel Maloy Mitchell is no longer eligible to attend 
the public schools of Caswell County, and an adjudication 
of his rights is unnecessary.

3. Charlie Jeffers, Alexander Jeffers, and Sylveen Jef­
fers have neither exhausted their administrative remedies 
nor sought an adjudication of their individual rights to 
attend a school of their choice without regard to race, and 
are, therefore, entitled to no relief.

4. Nathan Brown, Lunsford Brown, Sheliah Brown, 
Charlie Sanders, Jr. and Fred Sanders, while having tech-

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



152a

nically exhausted their administrative remedies by filing- 
applications for transfer to other schools and attending 
school board hearings, have not sought an adjudication of

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion

their individual rights, and have failed to sustain their.. 1WÛ U ^
burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence
that they had been denied admission to any particular
school because of race or color.

In view of the fact that the Brown and Sanders children
have technically exhausted their administrative remedies 
by filing applications for transfer and attending school 
board hearings, and the fact that the Sanders children 
have established that there is an elementary school much 
nearer their home than the school to which assigned, the 
court will defer the entry of a judgment for a period of 
ten days to give these plaintiffs an opportunity to file a 
written motion requesting that the case remain on the 
docket for the purpose of giving them an opportunity to 
request an adjudication of their individual rights to attend 
the school of their choice without regard to race or color, 
and the right to file new applications setting forth the 
schools to which transfers are desired and the reasons as 
to why the transfers should be granted. In the event such 
motion is filed, same shall be accompanied by an amend­
ment to the supplemental complaint filed on July 27, 1960, 
seeking an adjudication of the individual rights of the 
plaintiffs. At the time the motion is filed, said plaintiffs 
shall further file with the defendant Board applications 
for reassignment to particular schools, setting forth the 
reason why the transfers are desired and should be granted. 
The defendant Board shall give individual consideration 
to the applications within 10 days after same are filed, 
and make a report to the court immediately thereafter with 
respect to the action taken on each of the applications.



153a

If any applications are denied, the reasons therefor shall 
be included in the report. A copy of the report shall be 
furnished each of the minor plaintiffs and their counsel 
at the time it is filed with the court. If a court hearing is 
desired with respect to any applications denied, and a 
request for a hearing is filed with the court within five 
days after receipt of notice of the action taken by the 
defendant Board, a prompt hearing will be afforded. If 
additional information is desired of any of the plaintiffs, 
same shall be furnished within two days after receipt of 
a written request therefor.

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion

August 4,1961

/ s /  E dw in  M. S tanley 
United States District Judge



154a

Order Extending Time

I n  th e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
F or t h e  M iddle D istrict of N orth  Carolina 

Greensboro D ivision  

Civil No. 1079-G

[ same title]

Application having been made for an extension of time 
to comply with certain provisions of the Findings of Fact, 
Conclusions of Law, and Opinion filed herein on August 
4, 1961, and good cause appearing therefore;

I t is ordered that the Brown and Sanders children be 
and they are hereby given an additional period of five days, 
or until August 19, 1961, within which to move that this 
case remain on the docket for the purpose of giving them 
an opportunity to request an adjudication of their indi­
vidual rights to attend the school of their choice without 
regard to race or color, and to this end to file an amendment 
to the supplemental complaint filed on July 27,1960, seeking 
an adjudication of their individual rights, and to file with 
the defendant Board applications for reassignment to 
particular schools, setting forth the reasons why the trans­
fers are desired and should be granted.

August 11,1961

/s /  E dw in  M. S tanley 
United States District Judge



155a

P la in tiffs ’ M otion  fo r  D e fe rm e n t o f  E n try  o f  Ju d g m e n t 
an d  fo r  Leave to  P ro c e e d , etc.

I n  t h e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
F ob t h e  M iddle D istrict of N orth  Carolina 

Greensboro D ivision 

Civil No. 1079-G

[ same t it l e ]

P l a in t iffs’ M otion for D eferm ent  of E ntry  of J udg­
m en t  and for L eave to P roceed in  A ccordance W it h  
th e  S uggestions and D irections Contained in  th e  
Opin io n  of th e  Court E ntered A ugust 4, 1961

Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, respectfully move the Court, 
in accordance with the suggestions and directions con­
tained in the “Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and 
Opinion” filed herein on August 4, 1961, to defer the entry 
of judgment pursuant to that opinion, in order that certain 
of the plaintiffs may proceed to seek a determination of 
their rights to attend particular schools prior to the begin­
ning of the 1961-62 school term. In accordance with the 
Court’s opinion, this motion is accompanied by an amend­
ment to the supplemental complaint filed by plaintiffs in this 
case dated July 27, 1960. Further in accordance with the 
Court’s opinion, plaintiffs have filed further applications 
for reassignment with the defendant Board of Education, 
copies of which are appended hereto. Plaintiffs request 
that the Court allow them to proceed in accordance with 
the directions and suggestions contained in the above-men-



156a

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Deferment of Entry of Judgment 
and for Leave to Proceed, etc.

tioned opinion without prejudice to or waiver of plaintiffs’ 
objection and exception to the entire re-application proce­
dure set forth therein and to the denial of injunctive relief 
in this cause as previously submitted for determination, 
which objection and exception is hereby respectfully noted.

Respectfully submitted,

J ack Greenberg 
Suite 1790 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

C. 0. P earson 
W illiam  A. M arsh , J r.

2031/2 East Chapel Hill Street 
Post Office Box 1428 

Durham, North Carolina
Counsel for Plaintiffs



157a

M otion  fo r  Leave to  A m end  S u p p le m e n ta l C o m p la in t 
an d  A m en d m en t to S u p p le m e n ta l C o m p lain t

I n  th e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
F oe t h e  M iddle D istrict of N orth  Carolina 

Greensboro D ivision  

Civil No. 1079-G

[ same t it l e ]

In accordance with the suggestions and directions of 
the Court contained in the “Findings of Fact, Conclusions of 
Law, and Opinion”, filed herein on August 4, 1961, plaintiffs 
by their attorneys request leave to amend the prayer of 
demand for judgment in the Supplemental Complaint filed 
in this case dated July 26,1960 in order to add the following 
paragraph numbered “6” :

“6. That this Court enter an interlocutory and/or per­
manent injunction restraining the defendant Caswell 
County School Board, its agents, servants, employees, 
and all other persons in active concert and participa­
tion with it from further refusing on the basis of race 
or color to admit, enroll, and educate the minor plain­
tiffs to and in the particular schools which they have 
sought and are entitled to attend. That the Court, 
in accordance with Rule 54(c), Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure, grant such other and further relief as may 
be just and proper.”



158a

Motion for Leave to Amend Supplemental Complaint 
and Amendment to Supplemental Complaint

Plaintiffs further request that the Court allow the fore­
going amendment without prejudice to or waiver of plain­
tiffs’ objection and exception to the denial of injunctive re­
lief in this cause as previously submitted to the Court for
determination.

Respectfully submitted,

J ack Greenberg 
Suite 1790 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York

C. 0. P earson 
W illiam  A. M arsh , J r.

2031/2 East Chapel Hill Street 
Post Office Box 1428 

Durham, North Carolina
Counsel for Plaintiffs



159a

Caswell County  B oard oe E ducation 
Yaneeyville, N. C.
August 22, 1961 

Minutes
The Caswell County Board of Education met in special 
session Tuesday August 22nd at 7:30 p.m. in the school ad­
ministration building.

* * * # #
In the matter of Civil Action #1079G the Board Attorney, 
Mr. R. R. Blackwell, briefed the Board on the findings of 
fact, conclusions of law and opinion as delivered by Judge 
Edwin M. Stanley, Chief Judge for the Middle District of 
North Carolina as of August 4, 1961.
Present for this discussion, in addition to the Board At­
torney, were Mr. Erwin Stephens, Editor of the Caswell 
Messenger, Mr. Jack Sciom of the Danville Register and 
Bee, and Mr. Yancey Thomas.
Applications were reviewed by the Board from the follow­
ing:

Fred Saunders—Charlie H. Saunders, Sr., father. 
Charlie H. Saunders, Jr.—Charlie II. Saunders, Sr., 

father.
Lunceford Brown—Jasper Brown, father.
Shelia Brown—Jasper Brown, father.
Nathan Brown—Jasper Brown, father.

Following the review of said applications the Superinten­
dent was directed to send a letter by special messenger 
requesting Mr. Charlie H. Saunders, Sr. to come before the

Minutes of Caswell County Board of Education



160a

Board for a personal conference at 7 :30 p.m. Thursday 
August 24, 1961 at the school administration building.
There being no further business the Board adjourned.

Bespectfully submitted,

C. N. Barker, Chairman 
T. H. Whitley, Secretary

Minutes of Caswell County Board of Education

Caswell County  B oard of E ducation 
Yanceyville, N. C.

Board Minutes 
August 24, 1961

The Caswell County Board of Education met in special ses­
sion August 24, 1961 at 7:30 p.m. in the Board room of the 
Administration Building.
Members present were: C. N. Barker, Chairman, J. C. 
Wilkinson, E. J. Smith, N. L. Oliver, and J. A. Hodges.

* # # * #
On August 18, 1961 Applications For Change of Pupil As­
signment were received by mail in the same packet from 
C. 0. Pearson, Durham, N. C. for Fred Saunders, Charlie
H. Saunders, Jr., Nathan Brown, Shelia Brown, and Lunce- 
ford Brown. The Board of Education met in special ses­
sion Tuesday night August 22, 1961 and studied each of 
these applications making observations plans and conclu­
sions as follows:

1. Applications of the Saunders children both stated 
that they wished to be assigned to New Dotmond



161a

School, and this is the school to which they have been 
assigned already.

2. The Board directed the Superintendent to request a 
conference with Mr. Charlie H. Saunders, Sr. for 
August 24, 1961 at 7 :30 p.in. (to examine information 
in applications). This request was delivered by staff 
member from Board office and receipt of notice signed 
by Mr. Saunders.

3. The special session for which these minutes are pre­
pared was not attended by Mr. Saunders. Indirectly 
the Board was informed that Mr. Saunders desired 
that his children attend New Dotmond School.

The Board discussed at length these factors and circum­
stances and its considered opinion was that Mr. Saunders 
no longer desired to send his children to the Archibald 
Murphey School. Motion was made by Oliver, seconded by 
Wilkinson and passed unanimously that the assignment of 
Fred Saunders and Charlie Saunders, Jr. to New Dotmond 
School remain as originally made and also as requested on 
the last applications.
The Board studied each application of the Brown chil­
dren and referred to the following paragraph from the 
August 4, 1961 Discussion portion of Judge Stanley’s Find­
ings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Opinion:

The record is less clear with respect to the Brown chil­
dren. The Caswell County Training School bus passes 
within four-tenths of a mile of their home. They would 
have to walk two and one-half miles to reach the 
Bartlett Yancey School bus. It is not feasible for both 
buses to travel over this two and one-half mile dirt

Minutes of Caswell County Board of Education



162a

road which, dead-ends at the Brown home. There are 
no other children living on this road who attend, 
or who have applied for admission to, the Bartlett 
Yancey School. It is true that buses serving both 
schools go within a block and a half of each other in 
the town of Yanceyville, but for buses to carry children 
to both schools would create serious administrative 
problems. Since both schools are approximately the 
same distance from the Brown home, distance as 
a factor is eliminated. Additionally, the only reason 
given by the Brown children as to why a transfer was 
desired was to permit them to “transfer to an integrated 
school system, regardless of race, creed or color.” 
Pupils have no inherent right to be transferred simply 
because of their race. They do have the right to have 
their applications considered without regard to race 
or color. As has been repeatedly stated, the constitu­
tion of the United States, and nothing said in the Brown 
decision, requires an intermingling of the races, or gives 
to a child the right to attend a school of his choice 
solely because of his race. The simple requirement is 
that no child shall be denied admission to a school of his 
choice on the basis of race or color. In other words, 
the constitution does not require integration, it merely 
forbids discrimination. Briggs v. Elliott, 132 F. Supp. 
776 (E. D. S. C. 1955); Thompson v. County School 
Board of Arlington County, 144 F. Supp. 239 (E. D. 
Va. 1956). Upon reflection, it is perfectly clear that if 
school children were permitted to go to schools of their 
choice, without regard to attendance areas, distances, 
school bus routings, and other pertinent factors, some 
of the schools would be crowded beyond their capacity 
and some would be practically vacant. The burden is

Minutes of Caswell County Board of Education



163a

upon plaintiffs seeking a transfer to establish by a 
preponderance of the evidence that they were denied a 
constitutional right because of their race.

It was clear to the Board that the new applications from 
the Brown children gave no new reasons to cA r^d e r  of 
pupil assignment and that same gave only race afe the 
reason. «" "—— -•—-——"

There was considerable discussion in the Board meeting 
of the time spent in planning bus routes, assignment of 
pupils and teachers, program, planning, maintenance, opera­
tion, and allied duties and responsibilities, and since the 
Brown children gave no reason other than race the Board 
could see no justifiable reason for transfer. Motion was 
made by Smith, seconded by Hodges and passed unani­
mously denying request of the Brown children for transfer.
In accordance with directions from Judge Stanley an ac­
count of the above actions including reasons as shown will 
be sent to the Court and to the Plaintiffs and the respec­
tive counsels.

Minutes of Caswell County Board of Education

Respectfully submitted,

C. N. Barker, Chairman 
T. H. Whitley, Secretary



164a

I n  th e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
F or t h e  M iddle D istrict of N orth  Carolina 

Greensboro D ivision 

Civil No. 1079-G

Plaintiffs’ Report to the Court and Motion for
Entry of Judgment

[ same t it l e ]

Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, respectfully report to the 
Court as follows:

1. The defendant Caswell County Board of Education 
has reported to the Court that it has received and con­
sidered the applications of the minor plaintiffs Nathan 
Brown, Sheliah Brown and Lunceford Brown for change of 
their individual school assignments. Each of these applica­
tions was denied by the Board, which stated in its Minutes:

It was clear to the Board that the new applications 
from the Brown children gave no new reasons for 
transfer of pupil assignment and that same gave only 
race as the reason.

There was considerable discussion in the Board 
meeting of the time spent in planning bus routes, as­
signment of pupils and teachers, program planning, 
maintenance, operation, and allied duties and respon­
sibilities, and since the Brown children gave no reason 
other than race the Board could see no justifiable rea­
son for transfer. Motion was made by Smith, sec­



165a

onded by Hodges and passed unanimously denying 
request of the Brown children for transfer.

In addition, the Board’s Minutes include a long quotation 
from the opinion of this Court of August 4, 1961, discussing 
the applications of the Brown children.

Plaintiffs respectfully report to the Court that they 
have no further evidence to submit on the issues raised by 
these plaintiffs’ applications and submit that the material 
facts are already before the Court. Therefore, plaintiffs 
respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in their 
favor as prayed in the Supplemental Complaint as amended.

2. Plaintiffs’ counsel further reports to the Court that 
applications for change of assignment were filed with the 
County School Board for minor plaintiffs Fred Saunders 
and Charles H. Saunders, Jr. The Board reported to the 
Court that it requested their father, Charles H. Saunders, 
Sr., to attend a special meeting of the Board, and that Mr. 
Saunders did not attend the meeting. The Board reported 
also that it was “indirectly informed” that Mr. Saunders 
desired that his children attend the school where they were 
presently assigned. The Board then denied the applications 
because it was of the opinion “that Mr. Saunders no longer 
desired to send . his children to the Archibald Murphy 
School.”

C. 0. Pearson, Esq., plaintiffs’ attorney, reports to the 
Court that he has been unsuccessful in numerous attempts 
to contact the Saunders family in order to discuss the fur­
ther prosecution of this case. Attorney Pearson has been 
advised by one of the other adult plaintiffs that the 
Saunders family does not desire to further participate in the 
case, but no communication to this effect has been received

Plaintiffs’ Report to the Court and Motion for
Entry of Judgment



166a

from any members of the Saunders family. Mr. Pearson has 
grounds to believe that the Saunders family has been sub­
jected to threats or other forms of intimidation to induce 
them to cease prosecution of the pending cause. The basis 
for this belief is that after the opinion of August 4, 1961 
(indicating that these plaintiffs might possibly establish 
their right to attend an all-white school in further proceed­
ings), the Saunders family received a threatening letter 
which was forwarded by them to C. 0. Pearson, Esq. This 
letter, purporting to come from the Ku Klux Klan, has been 
forwarded to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

In these circumstances, plaintiffs’ counsel are unable 
to make any further presentation on the issues presented 
by the Saunders children’s applications, and therefore re­
quest that the Court determine the rights of these parties 
on the basis of the evidence previously presented, or grant 
such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just 
and proper in the circumstances.

Respectfully submitted,

J ack Greenberg 
Suite 1790 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

C. O. P earson

W illiam  A. M arsh , J r.
203% East Chapel Hill Street 

P. 0. Box 1428 
Durham, North Carolina

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs’ Report to the Court and Motion for
Entry of Judgment



167a

Affidavit of Charlie H. Saunders

NORTH CAROLINA 
Caswell County  

Civil No. 1079-Gf

[ same title]

Charlie H. S aunders, first being duly sworn, deposes 
and says:

1.
That he is a resident of Caswell County, North Carolina.

2.

That he is the father of Charlie Saunders, Jr. and Fred 
Saunders, minor plaintiffs in the above-entitled cause.

3.
That pursuant to the order of the Court, I filed an ap­

plication for reassignment of these two minor plaintiffs 
from the New Dotmond School to the Archibald Murphy 
School. However, in my application for reassignment, I 
inadvertently stated reassignment from Archibald Murphy 
School, predominantly all-white school, to New Dotmond 
School, which is predominantly all-Negro school.

4.
That I received letters under letterhead of the K lu  

K lux  K lan , which I interpreted as threats if, in the event, 
my children would be transferred to the white elementary



168a

Affidavit of Charlie H. Saunders

school (Archibald Murphy); that inasmuch as my wife is 
dead, I am the sole protector of my children, and having 
this in mind, I did not attend the meeting in connection with 
my applications, as I did not want my children to attend the 
white school, for I did not know whether or not they would 
be protected, inasmuch as the letters I  received were to the 
effect that no integration would take place in Caswell 
County.

5.
That I am willing to send my children to Archibald 

Murphy School, in the event they are transferred to said 
school, if I am assured of their protection from the proper 
authorities.

6.

That I have turned a letter over to my attorneys to, in 
turn, have the F. B. I. to investigate the source of this 
letter bearing the letterhead of K lu  K lux  K lan .

7.

That this affidavit is given in truth and not for the pur­
pose of presenting to the Court any facts which are not true.

This 6th day of November, 1961.

/ s /  Chablie  H . S aundeks 
Affiant

Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 6th day of No­
vember, 1961.

/ s /  J o h n  W . F ulton  
Notary Public

My Commission expires: 6-20-62.



169a

I n  t h e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
F ob t h e  M iddle D istrict of N orth  Carolina 

Greensboro D ivision  

Civil No. 1079-G

Supplemental Opinion

[ same title]

C. 0. P earson and W illiam  A. M arsh , J r., 
of Durham, North Carolina, and 

J ack Greenberg , of New York, N. Y., 
for Plaintiffs.

R obert R . B lackw ell, 
of Yanceyville, North Carolina, 

for Defendants.

E dw in  M. S tanley , Chief Judge.
Following the filing of the findings of fact and conclu­

sions of law and opinion on August 4, 1961, the Brown and 
Saunders children, in apt time, moved that the case remain 
on the docket for the purpose of giving them an opportunity 
to request an adjudication of their individual rights to 
attend the school of their choice without regard to race or 
color. At the same time, said plaintiffs filed an amendment 
to their supplemental complaint, filed on July 26, 1960, 
seeking an injunction against the defendant “from further 
refusing on the basis of race or color to admit, enroll and 
educate the minor plaintiffs to and in the particular schools



170a

which they have sought and are entitled to attend.” Said 
minor plaintiffs further filed with the defendant additional 
applications for reassignment to particular schools. Each 
of the Brown children sought reassignment from the Cas­
well County Training School to the Bartlett Yancey School, 
and each of the Saunders children sought reassignment 
from the “Archibald Murphy” School to the “Dotmond” 
School. The applications filed on behalf of the Saunders 
children were in obvious error since these children were 
then attending the New Dotmond Elementary School, and 
it can reasonably be concluded, as shown by an affidavit 
later filed by their father, that reassignment was actually 
being sought from the New Dotmond Elementary School 
to the Murphy Elementary School.

The defendant Board met on August 21, 1961, and after 
transacting other business, reviewed the new applications 
filed by the Saunders and Brown children. Following the 
review, the Board sent a letter by special messenger to 
Charlie H. Saunders, Sr., father of the Saunders children, 
requesting that he appear before the Board on Thursday, 
August 24, 1961, at 7:30 p.m., for a personal conference 
concerning the applications filed on behalf of his children.

The defendant Board met again on August 24, 1961, at 
7 :30 p.m., for the purpose of giving further consideration 
to the applications for reassignment filed on behalf of the 
Saunders and Brown children. The minutes of this meeting 
disclosed that these applications were received by the Board 
from counsel for the plaintiff on August 18, 1961. Charlie
H. Saunders, Sr., did not appear as requested. It was ob­
served that the Saunders children stated they wished to be 
assigned to New Dotmond Elementary School, the school to 
which they had already been assigned, and that the Board 
had been indirectly informed that Charlie H. Saunders, Sr.,

Supplemental Opinion



171a

desired that Ms children continue to attend said school 
rather than being reassigned to the Murphy Elementary 
School. It was thereupon concluded that no further action 
be taken on the applications filed on behalf of the Saunders 
children. With respect to the Brown children, it was ob­
served that their new applications gave no new reason for 
transfer to the Bartlett Yancey School, and that they only 
gave race as a reason for desiring the transfer. It was 
then concluded that the applications for reassignment 
should be denied. The minutes of the two Board meetings, 
together with copies of the new applications filed by the 
Saunders and Brown children, were filed with the court 
on August 29,1961.

On October 3, 1961, counsel for the plaintiffs reported to 
the court that efforts to contact the Saunders family had 
been in vain, and that there were grounds to believe that 
the family had been subjected to threats or other forms 
of intimidation to induce them to cease the prosecution of 
this action. Counsel then stated that they were unable to 
make any further presentation on the issues presented with 
respect to the Brown and Saunders children, and requested 
the court to determine the rights of the parties on the basis 
of the evidence previously presented.

In obedience to the court’s request that further informa­
tion be submitted with respect to the assertion that the 
Saunders family had been subjected to threats or other 
forms of intimidation unless they ceased the prosecution of 
this action, an affidavit was filed by Charlie EL Saunders, 
father of the Saunders children, on November 13, 1961, in 
which he stated that he had received a letter “under letter­
head of the Ku Klux Klan” which he interpreted as a threat 
in the event his children transferred to a white elementary 
school, and that this accounted for his failure to attend the

Supplemental Opinion



172a

meeting of the defendant Board on August 24, 1961. The 
affiant further stated that the letter had been turned over 
to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate its 
source, and that he was willing to send his children to the 
Murphy Elementary School if he was assured of their pro­
tection.

Under the facts found in the opinion filed on August 4, 
1961, supplemented by the facts related above, the court is 
now called upon to declare the rights of the Brown and 
Saunders children to attend the school of their choice with­
out regard to their race or color.

With respect to the Brown children, notwithstanding the 
earlier admonition of the court, they have still submitted 
no pertinent evidence in their applications for reassign­
ment, or otherwise, to establish that they would have been 
assigned to the Bartlett Yancey School if they were white 
children. In their latest applications for reassignment, filed 
with the defendant Board on August 18, 1961, they again 
complained of the Caswell County Schools being operated 
on a segregated basis, and made the assertion that their 
applications for reassignment should be approved for the 
reason that they would have been assigned to the Bartlett 
Yancey School if they “had not been a member of the Negro 
race.” No effort was made to establish this conclusion by 
giving any facts upon which the conclusion was based.

_claim was made that other school children living in the „ 
same area were assigneclto or attending the BalTIettYancey 
School. SAs set out in the opinion filed on August 4, 1961/* 
the school bus serving the Caswell County Training School 
passes within four-tenths of a mile of the home of the Brown 
children, whereas they would have to walk about two and 
one-half miles to reach the Bartlett Yancey School bus.

Supplemental Opinion



173a

There are no other children living on the road on which 
they reside who attend, or who have applied for admission 
to, the Bartlett Yancey School. It can fairly be said that 
what the Brown children and their parents are still seeking 
is only a desegregation of the Caswell County School sys­
tem rather than a protection of their own constitutional 
rights, and it is concluded that these plaintiffs have failed 
to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that they 
have been denied any constitutional right because of their 
race or color.

While there are still deficiencies in the applications filed 
on behalf of the Saunders children, the record fairly estab­
lishes that they would have been initially assigned, and 
would now be eligible for reassignment, to the Murphy Ele­
mentary School, if they were white children. As earlier 
noted, the New Dotmond Elementary School is almost twice 
as far from their home as the Murphy Elementary School. 
School buses serving both schools go by their front door. 
White children living in the same area are assigned to the 
Murphy Elementary School. The failure of their father, 
Charlie H. Saunders, to attend the meeting of the defendant 
Board on August 24, 1961, in view of the letter he had re­
ceived, is understandable, and should not be a determining 
factor. After considering the entire record, including the 
reasons assigned by the defendant Board for denying their 
applications, it is concluded that Charlie Saunders, Jr., and 
Fred Saunders have been denied reassignment to the 
Murphy Elementary School on account of their race and 
color. In the interest of orderly administration, the trans­
fer should become effective at the commencement of a new 
semester or school year.

Supplemental Opinion



174a

Additional Conclusions of Law
1. Nathan Brown, Lunceford Brown and Sheila Brown 

have failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence 
that their applications for reassignment to the Bartlett 
Yancey School were denied on account of their race or 
color, and are entitled to no relief.

2. Charlie Saunders, Jr., and Fred Saunders have estab­
lished by a preponderance of the evidence that they have 
been denied reassignment to the school of their choice on 
account of their race and color, and are entitled to be 
admitted to the Murphy Elementary School. In order to 
accomplish the transfer, they are only required to submit 
themselves to the proper school authorities at the Murphy 
Elementary School for registration at the commencement 
of any new semester or school year.

/ s /  E dwikt M. S tanley 
United States District Judge

Supplemental Opinion

December 29,1961



175a

Judgment

I n  th e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
F or t h e  M iddle D istrict oe N orth  Carolina 

Greensboro D ivision  

Civil No. 1079-G

[ same title]

This cause having come on regularly for trial before the 
court, and testimony having been offered and briefs filed by 
the parties, and the court having filed its findings of fact, 
conclusions of law and opinion on August 4, 1961, and its 
supplemental opinion and additional conclusions of law on 
December 29,1961,

I t is hereby  ordered and adjudged that the complaint 
herein be and the same is hereby dismissed, as to all plain­
tiffs except Charlie Saunders, Jr., and Fred Saunders.

I t is fu r th er  ordered and adjudged that Charlie Saun­
ders, Jr., and Fred Saunders are entitled to be admitted to 
and attend the Murphy Elementary School by presenting 
themselves at said school for registration at any new semes­
ter or school term.

I t is fu r th er  ordered that the defendants pay the costs 
incident to the prosecution of this action against the pres­
ent defendants.

/s /  E dw in  M. S tanley 
United States District Judge

December 29,1961



176a

Notice of Appeal

I n THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
F ob t h e  M iddle D istrict oe N orth  Carolina 

Greensboro D ivision  

Civil No. 1079-G

{same title]

Notice is hereby given that Alexander Jeffers and Sylvan 
Jeffers, minors, and John L. Jeffers and Annie L. Jeffers, 
their parents and next friends; Nathan Brown, Lunsford 
Brown, and Sheliah Brown, minors, and Jasper Brown, 
their father and next friend; Charlie Saunders, Jr., and 
Fred Saunders, minors, and C. H. Saunders, their father 
and next friend, plaintiffs herein, hereby appeal to the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 
from the Judgment entered in this action on December 29, 
1961.

Dated: January 25,1962

/ s /  C. 0. P earson

/ s /  W illiam  A. M arsh , J r.
C. 0. Pearson 
William A. Marsh, Jr.

2031/2 East Chapel Hill Street 
Durham, North Carolina

J ack Greenberg 
J ames M. N abrit, III 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York





'■$>* -  uM  Kj f  a 0 u o

f ' u '  N» ^ #j *4- A s\&(t

«T%̂VS

IWk-

i s j t i A  Th W  'M S  ,
4 ^ '^  _  -Jl.jg, Uu>T V-3

sM  'ft a - V> *

O' S If* im̂C V A x y  ^

U< W bV '
K'C* fc- ft) £ L̂-IX'-â  <0

i ^ t ô . -, ' / L .

Uk i jjM  -  UH

! S l-yUm-s
^  ['M t, -  f.h  ̂ ^

iv *- '  Am  u j l j  Itk
^  |  ^  1 ^ 1  ( ^  v * * ^ v U ^  i M U v ^

^  ^  o> ^  %~&ty

-—“• -̂£S»