Florida v. Board of Control Transcript of Record

    TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD

S u p r e m e  C o u r t  o f  t h e  U n i t e d  S t a t e s

OCTOBER TERM, 1951

N o .

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, EX EEL., ROSE BOYD, 
PETITIONER,

vs.

THE BOARD OF CONTROL OF FLORIDA, A BODY 
CORPORATE UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE 
OF FLORIDA, ET AL.

O N  P E T IT IO N  FO E A W R IT  OF CERTIO RA RI TO T H E  S U P R E M E  COU RT 
O F T H E  STA TE OF FLORID A

FILED



SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1951

N o .

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL., ROSE BOYD, 
PETITIONER,

vs.

THE BOARD OF CONTROL OF FLORIDA, A BODY 
CORPORATE UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE 
OF FLORIDA, ET AL.

ON P E T IT IO N  FO R  A W R IT  OF CERTIO RA RI TO T H E  S U P R E M E  COURT 
OF T H E  STA TE OF FLORID A

I N D E X
Original P rin t

Proceedings in Supreme Court of Florida ..............................  1 1
Caption ................................... (omitted in printing) . . 1
Petition for alternative writ of mandamus....................... 2 1
Order granting petition for alternative w rit..................... 9 4
Alternative writ of mandamus....................................... 11 5
Motion to quash alternative w rit...................................  16 8
Order denying motion to quash.....................................  18 8
Answer of respondents, J. Thomas Gurney, et al. to

alternative w rit................................................................. 22 9
Answer of respondents, Board of Control, et al. to

alternative writ ............................................................... 32 15
Exhibit “A”—Resolution of Board of Control,

December 21, 1949............................................... 41 22
Motion for peremptory writ of mandamus, filed Janu­

ary 19, 1950......................................................................  45 24
Opinion, Sebring, J., Upon motion for peremptory

writ ..................................................................................  47 25
Motion for peremptory writ of mandamus, filed May

16, 1951 .................................................................. ■ 51 27
Opinion, per curiam, on motion for peremptory w rit. . 54 28
Motion directing certification of record.............................  56 29
Clerk’s certificate..................... (omitted in printing) . . 57

Ju m > &  D e t w e il e r  ( I n o . ) ,  P r in t e r s , W a s h in g t o n , D. C., S e p t . 12, 1951. 

—7073



[fol. 1] 

[fol. 2]

[Caption omitted]

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE 
STATE OF FLORIDA

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ex  e e l , ROSE BOYD,
PLAINTIFF,

vs.

THE BOARD OF CONTROL OF FLORIDA, a body cor­
porate U N D E R  T H E  LAW S OF T H E  S T A T E  OF F L O R ID A , J .

THOMAS GURNEY, N. B. JORDAN, THOMAS W. 
BRYANT, J. HINSON MARKHAM, and HOLLIS 
RINEHART, as m em bers  of t h e  B oard of C ontrol of t h e  
S tate of F lo rid a ; J. HILLIS MILLER, as P r esid en t  of 
t h e  U n iv ersity  of F lorida, and R. S. JOHNSON, as 
R egistrar of t h e  U n iv ersity  of F lorida,

RESPONDENTS,
P e t it io n  for  A ltern a tiv e  W r it  of M andam us—Filed 

May 25, 1949
To the Honorable Judges of the Above Styled Court:

Your petitioner, Rose Boyd, respectfully presents unto 
the Court:

1
That your petitioner is a citizen and a resident of Marion 

County, Florida; that the respondent, the Board of Control 
of Florida, is a body corporate created by the laws of the 
State of Florida and its principal office and place of busi­
ness is in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida; that the 
respondent, J. Thomas Gurney, is a citizen and resident of 
Orange County, Florida, and is the duly appointed, quali­
fied and acting member and chairman of said Board of Con­
trol; that the respondent, N. B. Jordan, is a citizen and 
resident of Gadsden County, Florida and is a duly ap­
pointed, qualified and acting member of said Board of Con­
trol; that the respondent, Thomas W. Bryant, is a citizen 
and resident of Polk County, Florida, and is a duly ap- 
[fol. 3] pointed, qualified and acting member of said Board 
of Control; that the respondent, J. Hinson Markham, is a

1—7073



2

citizen and resident of Duval County, Florida, and is a 
duly appointed, qualified and acting member of said Board 
of Control; that tlie respondent, Hollis Rinehart, is a citizen 
and resident of Dade County, Florida, and is a duly ap­
pointed, qualified and acting member of said Board of 
Control; that the respondent, J. Hillis Miller, is a citizen 
and a resident of Alachua County, Florida, and is the duly 
appointed and qualified president of said University of 
Florida; that the respondent, R. S. Johnson, is a citizen 
and resident of Alachua County, Florida, and is the duly 
appointed and qualified registrar of said University of 
Florida.

2
That the petitioner desires to study pharmacy at the Uni­

versity of Florida which is supported and maintained by the 
taxpayers of the State of Florida and has been arbitrarily 
refused admission to said University.

3
That the petitioner has a Bachelor of Arts Degree from 

Dillard University, New Orleans, Louisiana.

4
That on or about the 4th day of April, A. D. 1949, your 

petitioner, duly applied for admission to the University of 
Florida for the purpose of studying pharmacy. She then 
possessed, and still possesses, all the scholastic, moral and 
other lawful qualifications prescribed by the Constitution 
and Statutes of the State of Florida, by the Board of Con­
trol of the State of Florida and by all the duly authorized 
officers and agents of said Board of Control and the Univer­
sity of Florida. She was then and is still, ready and willing 
to pay all uniform fees and charges and to conform to all 
lawful uniform rules and regulations established by lawful 
authority for admission to said class.

[fol. 4] 5
That contrary to the usual and customary procedure, the 

respondent, R. S. Johnson, forwarded petitioner’s applica­
tion to the respondent, the Board of Control, and there­
after, to-wit: the 13th day of May, A. D., 1949, your peti­
tioner, by and through her attorney, did appear before said



3

Board of Control at a regular meeting of said Board of 
Control in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, for a hearing 
upon her application for admission to the School of Phar­
macy at the University of Florida, That at said hearing 
the respondents, J. Thomas Gurney, N. B, Jordan, Thomas 
W. Bryant, J. Hinson Markham and Hollis Rinehart, did 
deny the application of your petitioner and did refuse to 
grant her admission to the School of Pharmacy at the 
University of Florida, and did then and there announce 
that said application was denied solely because of certain 
provisions of the Constitution and Statutes of the State of 
Florida which deny the right of your petitioner admission 
to the said University solely because of your petitioner’s 
race and color, thus denying unto your petitioner the equal 
protection of laws solely on the grounds of her race and 
color, contrary to the Constitution of the United States.

6

That the University of Florida is the only University in 
the State of Florida supported and maintained by the tax­
payers of the State of Florida in which the course of phar­
macy is offered.

7
That the respondents, J. Hillis Miller, as president of 

the University of Florida and R. S. Johnson, as registrar, 
have refused to admit your petitioner to the University of 
Florida solely because of race and color, thus denying your 
petitioner equal protection of the law, while at the same 
time admitting white applicants with less qualifications 
than your petitioner.

[fol. 5] 8
The petitioner further shows that she has no speedy, 

adequate remedy at law and that unless a Writ of Manda­
mus is issued she will be denied the right and privilege of 
pursuing the course of instruction at the University of 
Florida as hereinabove set out.

Your petitioner further shows unto this Court that the 
question involved in this proceeding is a special and pecu­
liar question of law, an early decision of which, will avoid 
litigation in other cases which will be controlled by force 
of the decision of this case, that the respondents herein are



4

a State Board, State offices, and other agencies, authorized 
to represent the public generally and that this is a case in 
which this Honorable Court should exercise its original 
jurisdiction.

Wherefore, your petitioner prays the isuance of an alter­
native writ commanding the respondents herein, within the 
time set by this Court, to admit your petitioner into the 
said University of Florida or to show to this Court for their 
refusal so to do.

(S) Bose Boyd, Petitioner.
(S) Alex Akerman, Jr., Attorney for Petitioner, 401 

First National Bank Building, Orlando, Florida.

ffols. 6-8] Duly sworn to by Rose Boyd and Alex Akerman, 
Jr. Jurats omitted in printing.

[fols. 9-10] In T H E  S U P R E M E  C O U R T  OF FL O R ID A  
[Title omitted]

O rder G ra n tin g  P e t it io n  eor A ltern a tiv e  W r it—June 10,
1949

Upon consideration of the petition of relator for an 
Alternative Writ of Mandamus in this cause, it is ordered 
that such writ issue returnable in thirty days from the date 
of said writ.



5

[fo b  11] I n  t h e  S u pr e m e  C ourt of F lorida 

[Title omitted]

A ltern a tiv e  W r it  of M andam us—June 10, 1949 

T h e  S tate of F lorida

To the Board of Control of Florida, a body corporate un­
der the laws of the State of Florida, J. Thomas Gurney, 
N. B. Jordan, Thomas W. Bryant, J. Hinson Markham, 
and Hollis Binehart, as members of the Board of Control 
of the State of Florida ; J. Hillis Miller, as President of 
the University of Florida, and R. S. Johnson, as Regis­
trar of the University of Florida, Greeting:

Whereas, upon the sworn petition filed herein by the 
relator Rose Boyd it has been made to appear that:

1

Your petitioner is a citizen and a resident of Marion 
County, Florida; that the respondent, the Board of Control 
of Florida, is a body corporate created by the laws of the 
State of Florida and its principal office and place of busi­
ness is in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida; that the 
respondent, J. Thomas Gurney, is a citizen and resident of 
Orange County, Florida, and is the duly appointed, qualified 
and acting member and chairman of said Board of Control; 
that the respondent N. B. Jordan, is a citizen and resident 
[fol. 12] of Gadsden County, Florida and is a duly ap­
pointed, qualified and acting member of said Board of Con­
trol; that the respondent, Thomas W. Bryant, is a citizen 
and resident of Polk County, Florida, and is a duly ap­
pointed, qualified and acting member of said Board of Con­
trol; that the respondent, J. Hinson Markham, is a citizen 
and resident of Duval County, Florida, and is a duly ap­
pointed, qualified and acting member of said Board of Con­
trol ; that the respondent, Hollis Rinehart, is a citizen and 
resident of Dade County, Florida, and is a duly appointed, 
qualified and acting member of said Board of Control; that 
the respondent, J. Hillis Miller, is a citizen and a resident 
of Alachua County, Florida, and is the duly appointed and 
qualified president of said University of Florida; that the



6

respondent, R. S. Johnson, is a citizen and resident of 
Alachua County, Florida, and is the duly appointed and 
qualified registrar of said University of Florida.

2

That the petitioner desires to study pharmacy at the 
University of Florida which is supported and maintained 
by the taxpayers of the State of Florida and has been ar­
bitrarily refused admission to said University.

3
That the petitioner has a Bachelor of Arts Degree from 

Dillard University, New Orleans, Louisiana.

4
That on or about the 4th day of April, A. D., 1949, your 

petitioner, duly applied for admission to the University of 
Florida for the purpose of studying pharmacy. She then 
possessed, and still possesses, all the scholastic, moral and 
other lawful qualifications prescribed by the Constitution 
and Statutes of the State of Florida, by the Board of Con­
trol of the State of Florida and by all the duly authorized 
officers and agents of said Board of Control and the Uni­
versity of Florida. She was then, and is still, ready and 
willing to pay all uniform fees and charges and to conform 
to all lawful uniform rules and regulations established by 
[fol. 13] lawful authority for admission to said class.

5
That contrary to the usual and customary procedure, the 

respondent, R. S. Johnson, forwarded petitioner’s applica­
tion to the respondent, the Board of Control, and thereafter, 
to-wit: the 13th day of May, A. D 1949, your petitioner, by 
and through her attorney, did appear before said Board of 
Control at a regular meeting of said Board of Control in 
Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, for a hearing upon her 
application for admission to the School of Pharmacy at 
the University of Florida. That at said hearing the re­
spondents, J. Thomas Gurney, N. B. Jordan, Thomas W. 
Bryant, J. Hinson Markham and Hollis Rinehart, did deny 
the application of your petitioner and did refuse to grant 
her admission to the School of Pharmacy at the University



7

of Florida, and did then and there announce that said appli­
cation was denied solely because of certain provisions of 
the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Florida which 
deny the right of your petitioner admission to the said 
University solely because of your petitioner’s race and 
color, thus denying unto your petitioner the equal protec­
tion of laws solely on the grounds of her race and color, 
contrary to the Constitution of the United States.

6
That the University of Florida is the only University in 

the State of Florida supported and maintained by the tax­
payers of the State of Florida in which the course of 
pharmacy is offered.

7
That the respondents, J. Hillis Miller, as President of the 

University of Florida and tt. S. Johnson, as registrar, have 
refused to admit your petitioner to the University of 
Florida solely because of race and color, thus denying your 
petitioner equal protection of the law, while at the same 
time admitting white applicants with less qualifications 
than your petitioner.

[fols. 14-15] 8
The petitioner further shows that she has no speedy, 

adequate remedy at law and that unless a Writ of Mandamus 
is issued she will be denied the right and privilege of 
pursuing the course of instruction at the University of 
Florida as hereinabove set out.

Your petitioner further shows unto this Court that the 
question involved is this proceeding is a special and peculiar 
question of law, an early decision of which, will avoid litiga­
tion in other eases which will be controlled by force of the 
decision of this case, that the respondents herein are a 
State Board, State offices, and other agencies, authorized 
to represent the public generally and that this is a case in 
which this Honorable Court should exercise its original 
jurisdiction.

Now, Therefore, these are to commend you the said Board 
of Control of Florida, a body corporate under the laws of 
the State of Florida, J. Thomas Gurney, N. B. Jordan,

2—7073



8

Thomas W. Bryant, J. Hinson Markham, and Hollis Rine­
hart, as members of the Board of Control of the State of 
Florida; J. Hillis Miller, as President of the University of 
Florida, and R. S. Johnson, as Registrar of the University 
of Florida to admit Rose Boyd to the school of Pharmacy 
of the said University of Florida as a student therein, or in 
the alternative, that you in your respective capacities in 
which you are herein joined, do show cause, if any you 
have, before this court on the 11th day of July, 1949 why 
peremptory writ of mandamus should not issue herein, and 
have you then and there this writ.

Witness the Honorable Alto Adams, Chief Justice of the 
Supreme Court of Florida and the Seal of said court at 
Tallahassee, the Capital, this 10th day of June, 1949.

( S ) ------ • Clerk Supreme Court of Florida.
(Seal)

ffols. 16-17] In t h e  S u pr e m e  C ourt oe F lorida 

[Title omitted]
M otion  to Q u a sh — Filed July 11, 1949

Comes now the respondents in the above styled cause, by 
their attorneys, and move the court to quash the alternative 
writ of mandamus herein, and for grounds of said motion 
show:

(1) The relator has other adequate remedy at law.
(2) The relator has not complied with conditions prece­

dent to a demand for the writ of mandamus.
(3) The relator has not made use of the means and 

manner provided by law to obtain his lawful demands.
Respectfully submitted, Richard W. Ervin, Attorney 

General; Frank J. Heintz, Assistant Attorney Gen­
eral, Attorneys for Respondents.

[fol. 18] In t h e  S u pr em e  C ourt op F lorida

[Title omitted]
Order D e n y in g  M otion  to Q u a sh — December 6, 1949

[fols. 19-21] Upon consideration of the motion of counsel 
for Respondents to quash the alternative writ of mandamus



9

heretofore issued herein, it is ordered that said motion be 
and the same is hereby denied and respondents are allowed 
thirty days from this date to file answer in this cause.

[fol. 22] I n t h e  S u pr e m e  C ourt op F lorida 

[Title omitted]

A n sw er  oe R e spo n d en ts , J. T hom as  G u r n e y , T hom as W.
B ry a n t , and J. H en so n  M a r k h a m , to A ltern a tiv e  S u it

op M andam us— Filed January 7, 1950

The respondents, J. Thomas Gurney, Thomas W. Bryant, 
and J. Henson Markham, for answer to the alternative writ 
of mandamus issued in this cause, say:

1
They admit the matters and facts alleged in paragraph 

numbered 1 of said alternative writ, except that they are 
no longer members of the Board of Control, nor is J. 
Thomas Gurney Chairman of said Board, as hereinafter 
more particularly set out.

2

They admit that the relator, at the time of the filing 
of her petition, desired to study pharmacy at the Univer­
sity of Florida, and that the University of Florida is sup­
ported and maintained by the State of Florida, and the 
taxpayers thereof, and that the relator was refused admis­
sion to said University. Respondents deny that the refusal 
[fol. 23] of admission was arbitrary, and say that, on the 
contrary, admission of relator would have been, and would 
now be, unlawful, for reasons hereinafter set out.

3
They admit the matters and facts alleged in paragraph 

numbered 3 of said alternative writ.

4
They admit the matters and facts alleged in paragraph 

numbered 4 of said writ, except they deny that the relator, at



10

the time of her application for admission, possessed, or now 
possesses, all lawful qualifications prescribed by the con­
stitution and statutes of the State of Florida, the Board 
of Control and duly authorized officers and agents of the 
Board and of the University of Florida, in that the relator is 
a member of the negro race, and under the laws of the State 
of Florida, the rules and regulations of the Board of 
Control, which laws, rules and regulations govern the officers 
and agents of said Board and University of Florida, admis­
sion to the University of Florida is permissible only to 
white students.

5
They admit that respondent, R. S. Johnson, Registrar of 

the University of Florida, forwarded petitioner’s applica­
tion to the Board of Control, and show that it was his duty 
so to do under the laws of the State of Florida and the 
rules and regulations of the Board of Control; and they 
admit that at a regular meeting of the Board of Control, on 
May 13, 1949, in Tallahassee, Florida, the relator appeared 
by her attorney for a hearing upon her application for 
admission to the University, and that at said meeting, 
attended by a majority of the members of the Board of 
Control, the Board denied the application of relator and 
ffol.24] refused to grant her admission to the school of 
pharmacy at the University of Florida, because, under the 
constitution and statutes of the State of Florida, the relator, 
being a member of the negro race, could not be lawfully 
admitted to the University of Florida; but these respondents 
deny that such action on the part of the Board of Control 
was or is denial to the petitioner of equal protection of the 
laws on the ground of race or color or contrary to the con­
stitution of the United States. At that time, the Board of 
Control informed relator, through her attorney, that be­
cause there was then no actually functioning Florida State 
institution of higher learning open to members of the negro 
race, where the courses of study he desired were offered, 
the Board was prepared to provide for her such courses of 
study at a college or university agreeable to her in another 
state, fully equal and as valuable as any such course 
offered at any tax supported institution of higher learning 
in the State of Florida.



11

They admit that at the time of relator’s application, for 
admission to the school of pharmacy at the University of 
Florida, it was the only tax supported and maintained 
school of pharmacy in the State of Florida at which a school 
of pharmacy was actually functioning and in operation, 
although said course was then, and had been for some time 
prior thereto, authorized and ordered set up, and has since 
been further provided for, at Florida Agricultural and Me­
chanical College for Negroes, at Tallahassee, Florida, which 
is a State supported and maintained institution of higher 
learning of the State of Florida within the State.

7
They admit that J. Hillis Miller, as President, and R. S. 

[fol. 25] Johnson, as Registrar of the University of Florida, 
respondents, refused to admit the relator to the University 
of Florida, but in so doing they acted under superior author­
ity of the Board of Control and the statutes and constitution 
of the State of Florida, and deny that such action on their 
part was denial to the relator of equal protection of the law; 
and deny that they were at the same time admitting white 
applicants with less qualifications than the relator.

6

8
They deny that the relator has no adequate remedy at 

law other than the writ of mandamus for which she prays, 
and say that the relator does not have the right or privilege 
of pursuing the course of instruction requested at the Uni­
versity of Florida, for the reason that the relator is a mem­
ber of the negro race and admission to the University of 
Florida is, by the laws of said State, restricted to students 
of the white race; and the other and substantially equal pro­
visions for giving to relator her requested courses of study 
have been made as herein set out; and they deny that the 
respondents have authority to represent the public gen­
erally and show that the authority of all of the respondents 
is limited and fixed by the statutes of the State of Florida, 
and subject to the supervising power and control of the 
State Board of Education of Florida; and the authority of 
the respondents, J. Hillis Miller and R. S. Johnson, is fur­



12

ther limited and fixed by the rules and regulations of the 
Board of Control.

9
Further answering the alternative writ, these respondents 

show that at the time of relator’s demand for admission to 
the University of Florida and its college of pharmacy, four 
[fol. 26] other students of the negro race, scholastically 
qualified, demanded admission to other departments or 
colleges of the University of Florida, namely, the graduate 
schools of law, agriculture, and chemical engineering, which 
courses were offered at an institution of higher learning of 
the State established for white students, but not at the 
Florida Agricultural and Mechanical College for Negroes; 
that, upon being refused admission for the same reason a:s 
relator was refused admission, they filed their several peti­
tions for mandamus, demanding their admission to the 
University of Florida at the same time that relator’s peti­
tion was filed. Alternative writs were issued thereon by 
this court, presenting issues similar to those of the relator 
herein, and are now pending and companion cases.

10

These respondents say further, that in the constitution 
and statutes of the State of Florida it is provided that 
white and negro students shall not be taught in the same 
school, but that impartial provision shall be made for both. 
In pursuance of said constitutional and statutory require­
ments, the State of Florida has established and maintains 
certain institutions of higher learning for white students, 
among which are the University of Florida, at Gainesville, 
Florda, and the Florida State University, at Tallahassee, 
Florida, and has established and maintains an institution 
of higher learning for negro students, the Florida Agricul­
tural and Mechanical College for Negroes, at Tallahassee, 
Florida. All of said institutions have been in operation for 
many years. All State institutions of higher learning are 
under the management and control of the respondent, Board 
of Control, subject to the supervising power and authority 
of the State Board of Education of Florida. From time 
to time, when the need therefor arose, courses were added 
at said institutions of higher learning and the curricula 
expanded to meet reasonable demands or requests of quali-



13

fled students; and it has been the long established and fixed 
[fol. 27] policy of the State of Florida, the Board of Control, 
and the State Board of Education of Florida to add addi­
tional schools and courses of instruction at all of said insti­
tutions when sufficient demand therefor appears.

11

Whatever rights the relator may have for instruction in 
her requested courses at a State operated institution of 
higher learning within the State, if it be determined that 
she has such rights, would be at the Florida Agricultural 
and Mechanical College for Negroes, and could not be law­
fully given her at the University of Florida; and the Board 
of Control and its member respondents have the option to 
provide the rights of the relator in that respect, whatever 
they may be, at a State operated institution of higher learn­
ing within the State other than at the University of Florida; 
that is, at the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical College 
for Negroes.

After relator’s original application for admission to the 
summer, 1949, term of the University of Florida, he made 
no further application for admission to any subsequent term 
or semester during the time these respondents remained 
members of the Board of Control.

12

In pursuance of the policy set out in paragraph numbered 
10 above, the Board of Control, in October, 1948, and prior 
to the demand of relator or other applicant, included in its 
budget for the ensuing biennium for the Florida Agricul­
tural and Mechanical College for Negroes, funds for the 
establishment of schools or colleges of law, chemical engi­
neering, pharmacy, journalism, social work, library science, 
[fol. 28] and other graduate courses, for which it appeared 
requests might be made at said last named institution; and, 
shortly before its adjournment, in June, 1949, the Legis­
lature, as was customary, made an appropriation for the 
Florida Agricultural and Mechanical College for Negroes, 
in which there were certain funds which might lawfully 
be used to establish and install said demanded courses of 
study, or some of them. It then appeared that insufficient 
funds would be available to satisfy the appropriations made



14

for the several State agencies, and the State Budget Com­
mission, in the exercise of its lawful authority, withheld a 
very substantial portion of all legislative appropriations, 
including that for the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical 
College for Negroes, until additional revenue should be pro­
vided by the Legislature at a special session to be called 
for that purpose. At the special session, in September, 1949, 
additional revenue was provided for all State appropri­
ations, including that for the Florida Agricultural and Me­
chanical College for Negroes, and a part, but not all, of 
the funds withheld have been released.

13
Further answering, these respondents show that the 

terms of office of the respondents, J. Thomas Gurney, Hollis 
Rinehart, and J. Henson Markham, who were a majority of 
the Board members, expired on June 27, 1949, but on request 
of the Governor of the State they held over until after said 
special session of the Legislature, when, on October 18, 
1949, their successors were appointed and qualified a:s mem­
bers of the Board of Control; and, thereupon, said three 
respondents ceased to be members of the Board or to have 
any further authority and could take no further action in 
the premises. These respondents are without knowledge or 
information, except hearsay, as to what may have trans­
pired in regard to the matter alleged in said alterna- 
[fols. 29-31] tive writ since the date when their successors 
qualified.

Wherefore, these respondents, having no longer any 
authority as to anything alleged in said writ, or claim 
therein, and no power to respond to any order that may be 
entered thereon, pray that as to them, and each of them, 
this proceeding be dismissed.

Richard W. Ervin, Attorney General; Frank J. 
Heintz, Assistant Attorney General, Attorneys for 
Respondents.

I do certify that copy hereof has Ijeen furnished to Alex 
Akerman, Jr., attorney for relator, by mail, this 7th day of 
January, 1950.

Frank J. Heintz, Assistant Attorney General, Attor­
ney for Respondents.



15

[fol. 32] I n t h e  S u pr e m e  C ourt of F lorida 

[Title omitted]

A n sw e r  of R e spo n d en ts , B oard of C o ntrol , a C orporation ,
1ST. B. J ordan, H ollis R in e h a r t , J .  H il l is  M il l e r , and
R. S. J o h n s o n , to A lter n a tiv e  W r it  of M andam us— Filed
January 7, 1950

The respondents, Board of Control, a public corporation 
of the State of Florida, N. B. Jordan, Hollis Rinehart, J. 
Hillis Miller, and R. S. Johnson, for answer to the alterna­
tive writ of mandamus issued in this case, say:

1
They admit the matters and facts alleged in paragraph 

numbered 1 of said alternative writ, except that respond­
ents, J. Thomas Gurney, Thomas W. Bryant, and J. Henson 
Markham, are no longer members of the Board of Control, 
nor is J. Thomas Gurney now Chairman of said Board, as 
hereinafter more particularly set out.

2

They admit that the relator, at the time of the filing of 
his petition, desired to study agriculture at graduate level 
at the University of Florida, and that the University of 
Florida is supported and maintained by the State of Florida, 
and the taxpayers thereof, and that the relator was refused 
admission to said University. Respondents deny that the 
[fol. 33] refusal of admission was arbitrary, and say that, 
on the contrary, admission of relator would have been, and 
would now be, unlawful, for reasons hereinafter set out.

3
They admit the matters and facts alleged in paragraph 

numbered 3 of said alternative writ.

4
They admit the matters and facts alleged in paragraph 

numbered 4 of said writ, except they deny that the relator, 
at the time of his application for admission, possessed, or 
now possesses, all lawful qualifications prescribed by the



16

constitution and statutes of the State of Florida, the Board 
of Control and duly authorized officers and agents of the 
Board and of the University of Florida, in that the relator 
is a member of the negro race, and under the laws of the- 
State of Florida, the rules and regulations of the Board of 
Control, which laws, rules and regulations govern the offi­
cers and agents of said Board and University of Florida, 
admission to the University of Florida is permissible only 
to white students,

5
They admit that respondent, R. S. Johnson, Registrar 

of the University of Florida, forwarded petitioner’s appli­
cation to the Board of Control, and show that it was his 
duty so to do under the laws of the State of Florida and 
the rules and regulations of the Board of Control; and they 
admit that at a regular meeting of the Board of Control, 
on May 13, 1949, in Tallahassee, Florida, the relator 
appeared by his attorney for a hearing upon his applica­
tion for admission to the University, and that at said meet­
ing, attended by a majority of the members of the Board 
of Control, the Board denied the application of relator and 
[fol. 34] refused to grant him admission to the School of 
Pharmacy at the University of Florida, because, under 
the constitution and statutes of the State of Florida, the 
relator, being a member of the negro race, could not be 
lawfully admitted to the University of Florida; but these 
respondents deny that such action on the part of the Board 
of Control was or is denial to the petitioner of equal pro­
tection of the laws on the ground of race or color or con­
trary to the constitution of the United States. At that 
time, the Board of Control informed relator, through his 
attorney, that because there was then no actually function­
ing Florida State institution of higher learning open to 
members of the negro race, where the courses of study 
he desired were offered, the Board was prepared to pro­
vide for her such courses of study at a college or university 
agreeable to her in another state, fully equal and as valuable 
as any such course offered at any tax supported institution 
of higher learning in the State of Florida.

6
They admit that at the time of relator’s application, the 

school of pharmacy at the University of Florida was the



17

only tax supported and maintained school of pharmacy 
in the State of Florida at which a school of pharmacy was 
actually functioning and in operation, but, since that time 
there has been authorized, ordered set up and provided 
for, a school of pharmacy at Florida Agricultural and 
Mechanical College for Negroes, at Tallahassee, Florida, 
which is a State supported and maintained institution of 
higher learning of the State of Florida within the State.

7
They admit that J. Hillis Miller, as President, and R. S. 

[fol. 35] Johnson, as Registrar of the University of Flor­
ida, respondents, refused to admit the relator to the Uni­
versity of Florida, but in so doing they acted under superior 
authority of the Board of Control and the statutes and 
constitution of the State of Florida, and deny that such 
action on their part was denial to the relator of equal 
protection of the law; and deny that they were at the same 
time admitting white applicants with less qualifications than 
the relator.

8
They deny that the relator has no adequate remedy at law 

other than the writ of mandamus for which he prays, and 
say that the relator does not have the right or privilege 
of pursuing the course of instruction requested at the Uni­
versity of Florida, for the reason that the relator is a 
member of the negro race and admission to the University 
of Florida is, by the laws of said State, restricted to stu­
dents of the white race; and that other and substantially 
equal provisions for giving to relator his requested courses 
of study have been made, as herein set out; and they deny 
that the respondents have authority to represent the pub­
lic generally and show that the authority of all of the 
respondents is limited and fixed by the statutes of the State 
of Florida, and subject to the supervising power and con­
trol of the State Board of Education of Florida; and the 
authority of the respondents, J. Hillis Miller and E. S. 
Johnson, is further limited and fixed by the rules and regu­
lations of the Board of Control.

9
Further answering the alternative writ, these respondents 

show that at the time of relator’s demand for admission



18

to the school of pharmacy at the University of Florida, 
four other students of the negro race, scholastically quali­
fied, demanded admission to other departments or colleges 
[fol. 36] of the University of Florida, namely, the school 
of pharmacy, which courses were offered at an institution 
of higher learning of the State established for white stu­
dents, but not at the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical 
College for Negroes; that, upon being refused admission 
for the same reason as relator was refused admission, they 
filed their several petitions for mandamus, demanding their 
admission to the University of Florida at the same time 
that relator’s petition was filed. Alternative writs were 
issued thereon by this court, presenting issues similar to 
those of the relator herein, and are now pending and com­
panion cases.

10

These respondents say further, that in the constitution 
and statutes of the State of Florida it is provided that 
white and negro students shall not be taught in the same 
school, but that impartial provision shall be made for both. 
In pursuance of said constitutional and statutory require­
ments, the State of Florida has established and maintains 
certain institutions of higher learning for white students, 
among which are the University of Florida, at Gainesville, 
Florida, and the Florida State University, at Tallahassee, 
Florida, and has established and maintains an institution 
of higher learning for negro students, the Florida Agricul­
tural and Mechanical College for Negroes, at Tallahassee, 
Florida. All of said institutions have been in operation 
for many years. All State institutions of higher learning 
are under the management and control of the respondent, 
Board of Control, subject to the supervising power and 
authority of the State Board of Education of Florida. From 
time to time, when the need therefor arose, courses were 
added at said institutions of higher learning and the cur­
ricula expanded to meet reasonable demands or requests 
of qualified students; and it has been the long established 
[fol. 37] and fixed policy of the State of Florida, the Board 
of Control, and the State Board of Education of Florida 
to add additional schools and courses of instruction at all 
of said institutions when sufficient demand therefor 
appears.



19

Whatever rights the relator may have for instruction 
in her requested courses at a State operated institution 
of higher learning within the State, if it be determined that 
she has such rights, would be at the Florida Agricultural 
and Mechanical College for Negroes, and could not be law­
fully given her at the University of Florida; and the Board 
of Control and its member respondents have the option 
to provide the rights of the relator in that respect, what­
ever they may be, at a State operated institution of higher 
learning within the State other than at the University 
of Florida; that is, at the Florida Agricultural and Mechan­
ical College for Negroes.

After relator’s original application for admission to the 
summer, 1949, term of the University of Florida, she has 
made no further application for admission to any subse­
quent term or semester, and the respondents now have 
pending before them no application by the relator for 
instruction in any course in any institution, nor are they 
advised as to whether relator now desires instruction in 
her requested courses at any future term or semester at 
any State institution of higher learning.

11

12

In pursuance of the policy set out in paragraph numbered 
10 above, the Board of Control, in October, 1948, and prior 
to the demand of relator or other applicant, included in 
its budget for the ensuing biennium for the Florida Agri­
cultural and Mechanical College for Negroes, funds for 
[fol. 38] the establishment of schools or colleges of law, 
chemical engineering, pharmacy, journalism, social work, 
library science, and other graduate courses, for which it 
appeared requests might be made at said last named insti­
tution; and, shortly before its adjournment, in June, 1949, 
the Legislature, as was customary, made an appropriation 
for the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical College for 
Negroes, in which there were certain funds which might 
lawfully be used to establish and install said demanded 
courses of study, or some of them. It then appeared that 
insufficient funds would be available to satisfy the appro­
priations made for the several State agencies, and the 
State Budget Commission, in the exercise of its lawful



20

authority, withheld a very substantial portion of all legis­
lative appropriations, including that for the Florida Agri­
cultural and Mechanical College for Negroes, until addi­
tional revenue should be provided by the Legislature at 
a special session to be called for that purpose. At the 
special session, in September, 1949, additional revenue was 
provided for all State appropriations, including that for 
the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical College for 
Negroes, and a part, but not all, of the funds withheld 
have been released.

13
Further answering, these respondents showT that the 

terms of office of the respondents, J. Thomas Gurney, Hollis 
Einehart, and J. Henson Markham, who were a majority 
of the Board members, expired on June 27, 1949, but on 
request of the Governor of the State they held over until 
after said special session of the Legislature, when, on 
October 18, 1949, their successors were appointed and quali­
fied as members of the Board of Control; and, thereupon, 
said three respondents ceased to be members of the Board 
or to have any further authority and could take no further 
action in the premises, and are now without power or 
[fol. 39] authority to respond to any order which may be 
entered herein,

14
And respondents further say that, in the meantime, the 

period for admission of any students, white or colored, to 
any of the State institutions of higher learning, at the 
summer term and fall term of 1949, had expired; and, on 
the 21st day of December, 1949, the Board of Control, as 
newly constituted, set up and established a school of phar­
macy and the other courses demanded by other negro 
applicants, as hereinabove set out, at the Florida Agricul­
tural and Mechanical College for Negroes, by resolution, 
copy of which is hereto attached, as Exhibit A, and made 
a part of this answer; and the Board of Control has directed 
the authorities at the State institutions of higher learning 
to put said resolution and the things therein authorized 
and directed into immediate practice and effect.

As authorized in said resolution, if the relator still 
declines to accept out-of-state scholarship or other pro­
vision which may be made for her instruction in the courses



21

she has requested elsewhere than at a State institution 
established for white students exclusively, and it should 
be held that said arrangement is insufficient to satisfy the 
relator’s lawful demands, the respondent, Board of Con­
trol, has made provision for relator’s immediate admission 
and enrollment at the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical 
College for Negroes, in its school of pharmacy established 
at that institution, and is ready to there admit her, pro­
vided the relator shall make her application for instruction 
in said course within the time allowed for members of any 
other group to apply for admission to said course at any 
[fol. 40] State institution of higher learning. And, in 
the event the necessary facilities, equipment and personnel 
for said course of study should not be immediately avail­
able, at the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical College 
for Negroes, in Tallahassee, upon her said renewed timely 
application for instruction^ in said course of study, the 
Board of Control has made provision for her instruction 
in said course of study, as in said resolution provided, at 
the only other institution of higher learning in the State 
of Florida offering such course, until such time as adequate 
and comparable facilities and personnel for such course of 
study, substantially equal to those provided at any tax 
supported institution of higher learning in the State, can 
be obtained and physically set up at the Florida Agricul­
tural and Mechanical College for Negroes, in Tallahassee, 
Florida.

Wherefore these respondents say that relator is not 
entitled to peremptory writ, but the same should be denied, 
the alternative writ quashed, and respondents hence 
dismissed.

(S.) Bichard W. Ervin, Attorney General; (S.) 
Frank J. Heintz, Assistant Attorney General, 
Attorneys for Respondents.

I do certify that copy hereof has been furnished to Alex 
Akerman, Jr., attorney for relator, by mail, this 7th day of 
January, 1950.

(S.) Frank J. Heintz, Assistant Attorney General, 
Attorney for Respondents.



22

[fo l. 41] E x h ib it  “ A ”  to A n sw eb

B esolittioh

Whereas, for many years it has been the policy of the 
Board of Control to establish at the Florida Agricultural 
and Mechanical College for Negroes such schools and 
courses as may be offered at any other of the State insti­
tutions of higher learning, whenever there were a suffi­
cient number of applicants to justify the establishment of 
such schools and courses, and in the meantime providing 
for the occasional negro applicant for education in those 
courses by out-of-state scholarships; and it is believed that 
such policy has been carried out over many years to the 
reasonable satisfaction of all parties concerned; and this 
Board reaffirms that policy; and,

Whereas, certain negro students have demanded admis­
sion to the University of Florida, where such courses are 
now given, and continuation of their demands is not 
unlikely; and,

Whereas, the Constitution of the State of Florida 
requires that students of the white and negro races “ shall 
not be taught in the same school, but impartial provision 
shall be made for both ’ ’;

Now, therefore, in order to comply with the constitu­
tion and laws of the State of Florida, as near as may be 
under existing circumstances, be it resolved that there 
is hereby established, at the Florida Agricultural and 
Mechanical College for Negroes, schools of law, mechani­
cal engineering, agriculture at graduate level and pharmacy 
at graduate level; and qualifications for admission to said 
courses shall be the same as those required for admission 
to said courses at other State institutions of higher learn­
ing in the State of Florida; and

Be it further resolved, that efforts to acquire the neces­
sary personnel, facilities, and equipment for such courses 
be reactivated and diligently prosecuted, with the view of 
[fol. 42] installing said personnel, facilities, and equipment 
for such courses at the Florida Agricultural and Mechani­
cal College for Negroes, at Tallahassee, Florida, at the 
earliest date possible, thereby to more fully comply with 
the Constitution and laws of the State of Florida; and 
that, in the meantime, and while diligent preparation is



23

being made to physically set up said schools and courses 
at the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical College for 
Negroes, at Tallahassee, Florida, further effort to be made 
to arrange with said applicants for out-of-state scholarships 
or other arrangements agreeable to them, equal to their 
reasonable individual needs and affording them full and 
complete opportunity to obtain the education for which 
they have applied, where obtainable, at institutions other 
than Florida state operated institutions of learning for 
white students, and under circumstances and surroundings 
fully as good as may be offered at any State operated 
institution of higher learning in the State of Florida; and

Be it further resolvedj in me event the court should 
hold that the foregoing provisions are insufficient to satisfy 
the lawful demands of said applicants, that temporarily, 
and only until completion of such acquisition of personnel, 
facilities and equipment for installation at the Florida 
Agricultural and Mechanical College for Negroes, at Talla­
hassee, comparable to those in institutions of higher learn­
ing of the State established for white students, the Florida 
Agricultural and Mechanical College for Negroes shall 
arrange for supplying said courses to its enrolled and 
qualified students at a Florida state operated institution 
of higher learning, where said courses may be given, and 
there the instructional personnel and facilities of such 
institution in the requested courses shall be provided and 
used for the education of said applicants at such times and 
places, and in such manner, as the latter institution may 
prescribe; and the authorities of such last described state 
[fols. 43-44] operated institution of higher learning shall 
cooperate in making such arrangements, to the end that 
there shall be available to said students of the Florida 
Agricultural and Mechanical College for Negroes, substan­
tially equal opportunity for education in said courses as 
may be provided for white students under like circum­
stances. In providing such education, the authorities of 
both institutions shall at all times observe all requirements 
of the laws of the State of Florida in the matter of segre­
gation of the races, etc.

Be it  f u r t h e r  resolved, That such instruction and facili­
ties to be provided by the State institution of higher 
learning, temporarily, as herein directed, shall be pro­
vided in such manner as will insure to graduates in such



24

courses the same privileges and benefits as may be accorded 
by law to graduates of the same courses in institutions 
of higher learning in the State established for white 
students.

Be it  f u r t h e r  resolved, That actual cost of supplying 
said instruction shall be accurately determined and the 
institution reimbursed therefor from such funds appro­
priated for the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical Col­
lege for Negroes as may lawfully be used for that purpose.

[fols. 45-46] In t h e  S u pr e m e  Court of F lorida 

[Title omitted]

M otion  for P erem ptory  W r it— Filed Jan. 19, 1950
Comes now the Relator Rose Bovd, and moves the Court 

issue a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus directed to the 
Respondents, Board of Control of Florida; N. B. Jordan 
and Hollis Rinehart as members of the Board of Control 
of Florida; J. Hillis Miller as President of the University 
of Florida; and R. S. Johnson as Registrar of the Univer­
sity of Florida, requiring said Respondents to admit 
Relators to the University of Florida, the Answer of said 
Respondents notwithstanding, and as grounds for said 
Motion says:

1. That the allegations contained in the Answer filed by 
said Respondents wholly fail to set forth any legal reason 
why a Peremptory Writ should not issue.

Alex Akerman, Jr., Attorney for Relator.

I do certify that copy hereof has been furnished Richard 
W. Ervin, Attorney General, and Frank J. Heintz, Assist­
ant Attorney General, attorneys for respondents, by mail, 
this 17th day of January, A.T)., 1950.

Alex Akerman, Jr., Attorney for Relator.



25

[fol. 47] I n t h e  S u p r e m e  C ourt of F lorida 

June Term, A. D. 1950 

En Banc 

Mandamus

The S tate of F lorida, ex rel. Rose B oyd, Relator,
vs.

B oard of C ontrol , a body corporate, etc., et al., 
Respondents

A case of original jurisdiction—Mandamus 
A lex  A k e r m a n , J r ., for Relator
R ichard  W. E r v in , Attorney General, and F rank  J. H e in t z ,

Assistant Attorney General, for Respondents.

Op in io n — Filed August 1, 1950
S eb r in g , J . :

The relator, Rose Boyd, is a negro citizen and resident 
of the State of Florida. Except as to the matter of race 
and color, she possesses all the scholastic, moral and other 
qualifications, prescribed by the laws of Florida and the 
rules and regulations of the State Board of Control for 
admission to the University of Florida, a state supported 
institution of higher learning maintained exclusively for 
white students.

In April 1941 relator applied for admission to the Uni­
versity of Florida for the purpose of studying pharmacy, 
[fol. 48] Her application was denied on the sole ground that 
she was a member of the negro race. Relator thereupon 
instituted this mandamus action, alleging the matters above 
set forth, averring that the University of Florida is the only 
tax-supported university in the State at which courses of 
pharmacy are offered, and charging that the refusal of the 
governing authorities to admit her solely because she was 
a negro constituted an arbitrary and illegal denial of the 
equal protection of the laws guaranteed her by the Four­
teenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.



26

In due course the members of the Board of Control filed 
their return to the alternative writ issued in the cause. In 
their return the Board set up the same defenses as were 
filed by the Board of Control in State ex rel. Hawkins v. 
Board of Control, this day decided, and offered to the re­
lator, Boyd, the same opportunities in respect to courses 
in pharmacy as were made available to the relator in that 
case with reference to law school training; that is to say, 
offered here the opportunity to secure instruction in phar­
macy at a university or college outside the State of Florida, 
where negro students are eligible for admission, and as an 
alternative, offered to enroll her at the Florida Agricultural 
and Mechanical College for Negroes, in the school of phar­
macy recently established by the Board at that institution 
and to make temporary provision for her instruction in the 
College of Pharmacy at the University of Florida, in the 
event the necessary facilities, equipment and personnel for 
said course of study should not be immediately available at 
the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical College for Ne­
groes at the time of her enrollment.

A motion has been made for the issuance of a peremptory 
writ notwithstanding the return filed by the respondents, on 
the ground that the opportunities offered to the relator do 
not afford her the equal protection of the laws guaranteed 
by the Federal Constitution.
[fols. 49-50] Every question raised by the parties in this 
suit has been considered and decided by this Court in State 
ex rel. Hawkins vs. Board of Control, supra, and hence it 
follows that the opinion and judgment rendered in that 
cause should control the disposition that should be made of 
the case at bar.

It is so ordered.
A dams, C.J., T er r ell , C h a pm a n , T h o m a s , H obson and

B oberts, JJ., concur.



27

[fol. 51] In t h e  S u p r e m e  C ourt of F lorida

[Title omitted]

M otion  for P erem pto ry  W rit—Filed May 16, 1951
Comes now the Relator, Eose Boyd, by her undersigned 

Attorney and moves the Court to issue a Peremptory Writ 
of Mandamus directed to Eespondents, Board of Control of 
Florida; N. B. Jordan and Hollis Rinehart as members of 
the Board of Control of Florida; J. Hollis Miller as Presi­
dent of the University of Florida ; and R. S. Johnson, Reg­
istrar of the University of Florida, requiring said Re­
spondents to admit Relator to the University of Florida, 
the Answer of said Respondents notwithstanding, and as 
grounds for said Motion says :

1. That the Respondents have failed to provide Relator
the equal educational opportunities in accordance with the 
interlocutory order of this Court rendered on August 1, 
1950; that Relator hereby applied for further relief in this 
cause in accordance with the Court’s mandate and requests 
this Court to issue a peremptory writ of mandamus at this 
time as prayed for in Relator’s complaint requiring the 
Respondents to admit her instanter to the University of 
Florida in order that she may thereby receive educational 
opportunities and advantages equal to those available to 
white persons at the University of Florida.
[fols. 52-53] 2. That the Relator has exhausted all reason­
able means available to her for attaining admittance to the 
University of Florida the only institution in the State of 
Florida supported and maintained by the taxpayers of the 
State of Florida offering courses necessary in obtaining the 
degree in her chosen profession; that the creation of the 
purported school of Pharmacy on paper for Negroes at the 
Florida A & M College and/or the alternative plan adopted 
by the Board of Control of Florida and made a part of 
Respondent’s answer does not accord to Relator the equal 
protection of the laws as required by the Fourteenth 
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

3. That on August 1, 1950, when the Court handed down 
a decision in this cause, the Respondents had made avail­
able, on paper, pharmaceutical education at the Florida 
A & M College for Negroes; that in fact there is no phar­
maceutical school at the Florida A & M College; and that



28

the only state-supported institution where Eelator can se­
cure educational opportunities and advantages for a phar­
maceutical education equal to those available to white stu­
dents is at the University of Florida; that no steps have 
been made to provide Eelator with pharmaceutical educa­
tional opportunities and advantages within the state since 
the decision of this Court, on August 1, 1950; and that 
Eelator has now lost one whole year in which she could 
have been pursuing a pharmaceutical education.

W h e r e fo r e , in accordance with the decision of this Court, 
on August 1, 1950, Eelator hereby applies for further relief 
and requests the Court to issue a peremptory writ of Man­
damus ordering her admission as a regular student in the 
School of Pharmacy of the University of Florida.

(S) H. E. Hill, Attorney for Eelator, 525 Second 
Ave., Daytona Beach, Fla.

[fols. 54-55] Isr t h e  S u pr e m e  C ourt of F lorida 
June Term, A. D. 1951

En Bane

Supreme Court No. 21,142

T h e  S tate of F lorida, ex rel. B ose B oyd, Eelator,
vs.

B oard of C ontrol , a body corporate, et al., Eespondents 
A Case of Original Jurisdiction—Mandamus 
H. E. H il l , for Eelator.

B ichard  W. E r v in , Attorney General, and F ra n k  J. H e in t z , 

Assistant Attorney General, for Eespondents.

Op in io n —Filed June 15, 1951
P er  C u r ia m .

The motion for the entry of a peremptory writ of man­
damus notwithstanding the return filed by the Eespond­
ents in this proceeding is denied on authority of the ruling 
in the State of Florida ex rel, Virgil D. Hawkins, Eelator,



29

vs. Board of Control, a body corporate etc., et al., Re­
spondents, rendered this 15th day of June, 1951.
S eek in g , C.J., T er r ell , C h a pm a n , A dams, H obson a n d

R oberts, JJ., co n cu r.
T hom as , J., n o t p a r t ic ip a t in g .

[fol. 56] I n t h e  S u pr e m e  C ourt of F lorida 

[Title omitted]

M otion  D ir ec tin g  Certific a tio n  of R ecord— Filed 
August 15, 1951

Comes now the Relators by their attorney undersigned 
and thereby directing the Clerk to certify the entire record 
in the above styled cause, including pleadings, testimony 
and exhibits, if any.

(S) H. E. Hill, 525 Second Avenue, Daytona Beach, 
Florida, Attorney for Relators.

Certificate of Service
I do hereby certify that copy hereof have been furnished 

by (mail) (delivery) this 14th day of August 1951 to: 
Richard T. Ervin, Attorney General.

/ s/ H. E. Hill, Attorney.

[fol. 57] Clerk’s Certificate to foregoing transcript omitted 
in printing.



30

[fo l. 58] S u p r e m e  C ourt op t h e  U n ited  S tates,
October Term, 1951

No. —

S tate ex  rel  H a w k in s , et a l., Petitioners, 
vs.

B oard op C ontrol

O rder E x ten d in g  T im e  to F il e  P e t it io n  for  W rit  op

Certiorari

It is ordered that the time for filing petition for writ of 
certiorari in the above-entitled cause be, and the same is 
hereby, extended to and including September 15, 1951.

Stanley Heed, Associate Justice of the Supreme 
Court of the Unitedx States.

Dated this 13th day of September, 1951.

(7073)



31

[fol. 31] In t h e  S u p r e m e  C ourt oe F lorida

[Title omitted]
M otion  for  P erem pto ry  W r it  and  F in a l  J u d g m en t—Filed

May 28, 1952
Comes now the Relator, Rose Boyd, by her undersigned 

attorney and moves this Honorable Court to issue a P-r- 
emptory Writ of Mandamus directed to Respondents, Board 
of Control of Florida; N. B. Jordan and Hollis Rinehart as 
members of the Board of Control; and R. S. Johnson, Reg­
istrar of the University of Florida, requiring said Respond­
ents to admit Relator to the University of Florida and for 
Final Judgment in said cause, the answer of said Respond­
ents notwithstanding, and as grounds for said Motion says:

I
That since the redition of the Court’s initial opinion in 

the case of State ex rel Hawkins v. Board of Control of 
Florida et al., 47 So. 2d 608 et seq., the Relator has re­
applied and made due and regular re-application for enroll­
ment and admission to the School of Pharmacy at the Uni­
versity of Florida and has complied with all requirements 
necessary for enrollment and admission at said institution 
to no avail and is beset with obstacles wholly beyond the 
intendment of her constitutional rights and the essentials of 
human well-being and beyond any recognized constitutional 
social expediency; the Relator having exhausted her reme­
dies save and except the relief to be afforded by this Hon­
orable Court.

II
That the judgment heretofore rendered by this Honorable 

Court in said cause is a nisi order and interlocutory in its 
nature and not an appealable judgment. That the Relator 
desires to take an appeal therefrom but is precluded from 
[fols. 32-33] so doing unless this Court enters a Final Judg­
ment and to that end the Relator stands on her pleadings as 
filed herein.

III
That all pleadings have been submitted, issues joined and 

proof taken and being conscious of the morality and justice



32

of her cause as now here contended for thus submit herself 
to this Honorable Court to the end that a Peremptory Writ 
of Mandamus be granted as prayed for and that a Final 
Judgment be entered in this cause.

Wherefore Relator moves this Honorable Court for the 
issuance of a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus and that Final 
Judgment be entered in the above entitled cause.

(S.) H. E. Hill, 525V2 Second Avenue, Daytona 
Beach, Florida.

[fo ls . 34-35] I n  t h e  S u p r e m e  C ourt op F lorida , J u n e  
T e r m , A. D. 1952, Eur B a n c .

M andam us

Supreme Court #21,142
T h e  S tate op F lorida , ex  re l .  R ose B oyd, R e la to r ,

vs.
B oard of C ontrol , a Body Corporate, Etc., et al., Re­

spondents
A case of original jurisdiction—Mandamus.
H. E. Hill, for Relator.
Richard W. Ervin, Attorney General and Frank J. 

Heintz, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondents.
O p in io n —Filed August 1, 1952

S eek in g , C. J . :
This is a companion case to State ex rel. Hawkins v. 

Board of Control, — So. 2d —, decided this 1st day of 
August, 1952. The conclusions reached therein apply 
equally to the contentions presented in this case.

The motion for peremptory writ should be denied, the 
alternative writ heretofore entered should be quashed, and 
the cause should be dismissed at the cost of the relator.

It is so ordered.
Terrell, Thomas, Hobson, Roberts and Mathews, J. J., 

and Hocker Associate Justice, Concur,



33

[fol. 36] I n t h e  S u p r e m e  Coubt op F lorida

[Title omitted]

M otion—Filed August 12, 1952
Come now the Relators, by their undersigned attorney, 

and direct the Clerk to certify the entire record respectively 
in the above styled cause, to wit:

1. Petition for Alternative Writ of Mandamus.
2. Order Granting Petition for Alternative Writ of Man­

damus.
3. Alternative Writ of Mandamus.
4. Respondents’ Motion to Quash.
5. The Order Denying Respondents’ Motion to Quash.
6. Answer of Respondents.

[fol. 37] 7. Relators’ Motion for Peremptory Writ.
8. Opinion of the Court, Aug. 1, 1950.
9. Relators’ Motion for Peremptory Writ.
10. Opinion of the Court, June 15, 1951.
11. Relators’ Motion Directing Certification of Record.
12. Relators’ Motion for Peremptory Writ and Final 

Judgment.
(S.) H . E. Hill, 5251-0 Second Avenue, Daytona 

Beach, Florida, Attorney for Relators.
Certificate of Service omitted in printing.

[fol. 38] Clerk’s Certificate to foregoing transcript omit­
ted in printing.

(3671)