Maxwell v. Bishop Brief Amicus Curiae

    TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1951

No.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, EX EEL., WILLIAM T. 
LEWIS, 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 C ERTIO RA RI TO T H E  S U P R E M E  COU RT 
OF T H E  STA TE OF FLORID A

PILED



SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1951

No.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, EX EEL., WILLIAM T. 
LEWIS, 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  PO E A W H IT  OP CERTIO RA RI TO T H E  S U P R E M E  CO U RT 

OP T H E  STATE O F  FLORID A

INDEX
Original P rin t

Proceedings in the Supreme Court of Florida.....................  a 1
Caption ................................... (omitted in printing) , . a
Petition for alternative writ of mandamus.................... 1 1
Order granting petition for alternative w rit...............  9 4
Alternative writ of mandamus .....................................  11 5
Motion to quash alternative w rit...................................  17 8
Order denying motion to quash.....................................  19 9
Answer of respondents, J. Thomas Gurney, et al. to

alternative writ ........................................................... 22 9
Answers of respondents, Board of Control, et al. to

alternative writ ........................................................... 31 15
Exhibit “A ”—Resolution of Board of Control,

December 21, 1949............................................... 40 22
Motion for peremptory writ of mandamus, filed Janu­

ary, 19, 1950 ................................................................. 44 24
Opinion, Sebring, J., Upon motion for peremptory

writ ..............................................................................  46 25
Motion for peremptory writ of mandamus, filed May

16, 1951 ......................................................   50 26
Opinion, per curiam, on motion for peremptory w rit. . 53 28
Motion directing certification of record.......................  55 29
Clerk’s certificate..................... (omitted in printing) . . 56

J u d d & D e t w e i m b  (lire.), P r in t e r s , W a s h in g t o n , D . C., S eipt. 12, 1951.

-7074



1

[Caption omitted]

[fol.l] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE 
STATE OF FLORIDA

T h e  S tate op F lorida, ex rel, W il l ia m  T. L e w is , Plaintiff,
vs.

T h e  B oard of C ontrol op F lorida , a body corporate under 
the laws of the State of Florida, J .  T hom as (Tu rn ey , 
N. B . J ordan, T hom as W. B ry a n t , J .  H in so n  M a r k h a m , 
and H ollis R in e h a r t , as members of the Board of Con­
trol of State of Florida; J .  H il l is  M il l e r , as President 
of the University of Florida, and R. S. J o h n so n , as Reg­
istrar of the University of Florida, 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, William T. Lewis, respectfully presents 

unto the Court:
1

That your petitioner is a citizen and a resident of Mar­
tin, 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 business is in Tallahassee, Leon County, 
Florida; that the respondent, J. Thomas Gurney, is a citi­
zen and resident of Orange County, Florida, and is a duly 
appointed, qualified and acting member and chairman of 
said Board of Control; that the respondent, N. B. Jordan, 
is a citizen and resident of Gadsden County, Florida, and 
is a duly appointed, qualified and acting member of said 
Board of Control; that the respondent, Thomas W. Bryant, 
is a citizen and resident of Polk County, Florida, and is a 
[fol. 2] duly appointed, qualified and acting member of 
said Board of Control; that the respondent, J. Hinson 
Markham, is a citizen and resident of Duval County, Flor­
ida, and is a duly appointed, qualified and acting member 
of said Board of Control; that the respondent, Hollis Rine­
hart, is a citizen and resident of Dade County, Florida, and



2

is a duly appointed, qualified and acting member of said 
Board of Control; that the respondent, J. Hillis Miller, is 
a citizen and resident of Alachua County, Florida, and is 
the duly appointed and qualified president of said Uni­
versity 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 Univer­
sity of Florida.

2

That the petitioner desires to study law in the College 
of Law of the University of Florida which is supported 
and maintained by the taxpayers of the State of Florida for 
the purpose of preparing himself to practice law in the 
State of Florida and for public service therein and has 
been arbitrarily refused admission.

3
That the petitioner has an AB Degree from Morehouse 

College of Atlanta, Georgia and in addition thereto, has 
attended the University of Illinois at Urbana, Illinois.

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

petitioner, duly applied for admission to the first year 
class of the College of Law of the University of Florida, 
for attendance at the coming summer session of said school. 
He then possessed, and still possesses, all the scholastic, 
moral and other lawful qualifications prescribed by the Con­
stitution and Statutes of the State of Florida, by the Board 
of Control of the State of Florida and by all the duly author­
ized officers and agents of said Board of Control and the 
University of Florida and the College of Law for admis­
sion in the first year class of the College of Law of said 
University. He was then, and is still, ready and willing 
[fob 3] 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.

That contrary to the usual and customary procedure, the 
respondent, R. S. Johnson, forwarded petitioner’s appli­
cation to the respondent, the Board of Control and there­



3

after to-wit: the 13th day of May, A.D., 1949, your peti­
tioner, by and through his attorney, did appear before said 
Board of Control at a regular meeting of said Board of 
Control in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, for a healing 
upon his application for admission. 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 him admission into the first year class of the College 
of Law 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 Stat­
utes 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 ground 
of his race and color, contrary to the Constitution of the 
United States.

6
That the College of Law of the University of Florida is 

the only law school in the State of Florida supported and 
maintained by the taxpayers of the State of Florida. That 
the College of Law specializes in law and procedure which 
regulates the Court of Justice and the government of the 
State of Florida and there is no other law school main­
tained by the public funds of the State of Florida where 
your petitioner can study Florida law and procedure to 
the same extent and on an equal level of scholarship and 
intensity as in the College of law of the University of 
[fol. 4] Florida. That the arbitrary and illegal refusal of the 
respondents, the members of the Board of Control to admit 
your petitioner to the first year of law school solely on the 
grounds of race and color has caused irreparable injury 
and will place him at a distinct disadvantage at the Bar of 
Florida and in the public service of the aforesaid State 
with persons who have had the benefit of the unique prepa­
ration in Florida law and procedure given to white students 
in the law school of the University of Florida.

7

That the respondents, J. Hillis Miller, as president of 
the University of Florida and R. S. Johnson, as registrar,



4

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.

8

The petitioner further shows that he has no speedy, 
adequate remedy at law and that unless a Writ of Man­
damus is issued he will be denied the right and privilege 
of pursuing the course of instruction in the school of law 
as hereinabove set out.

Your petitioner further shows unto this Court that the 
question involved in this proceeding is a special and 
peculiar 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 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.
[fol. 5] Wherefore, your petitioner prays the issuance of 
an alternative writ commanding the respondents herein, 
within the time set by this Court, to admit your petitioner 
into the College of Law of said University of Florida or 
to show to this Court for their refusal so to do.

(S.) William T. Lewis, Petitioner. (S.) Alex Aker- 
man Jr., Attorney for Petitioner, 401 First Na­
tional Bank Building, Orlando, Florida.

[fol. 6-8] Duly sworn to by William T. Lewis and Alex 
Akerman, Jr. Jurats omitted in printing.

[fol. 9-10] I n t h e  S u pr e m e  C ourt of F lorida

[Title omitted]

Order G r a n tin g  P e t it io n  for  A ltern a tiv e  W rit  
J u n e  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 l. 11] I n  t h e  S u pr e m e  C ourt oe F lorida 

[Title omitted]

A lter n a tiv e  W r it  o f  M andam us— June 10, 1949
T h e  S tate op F lorida to t h e  B oard of C ontrol  of F lorida, 

a B ody C orporate U nder  t h e  L aws of t h e  S tate of 
F lorida, J .  T hom as G u r n ey , N . B . J ordan, T hom as W. 
B ryant , J, H in so n  M a r k h a m , and H ollis R in e h a r t , 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. H il l is  M il l e r , as P r esid en t  of t h e  U n iv er­
sity  of F lorida, and R . S . J o h n so n , as R egistrar  of t h e  
U n iv er sity  of F lorida, Gr e e t in g :

Whereas, upon the sworn petition filed herein by the 
relator William T. Lewis it has been made to appear that:

1
Your petitioner is a citizen and a resident of Martin, 

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 business is in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida; 
that the respondent, J. Thomas Gurney, is a citizen and 
resident of Orange County, Florida, and is a duly appointed, 
qualified and acting member and chairman of said Board 
of Control; that the respondent, N. B. Jordan, is a citizen 
[fol. 12] and resident of Gadsden County, Florida, and is a 
duly appointed, qualified and acting member of said Board 
of Control; that the respondent, Thomas W. Bryant, is a 
citizen and resident of Polk County, Florida, and is a duly 
appointed, qualified and acting member of said Board of 
Control; that the respondent, J. Hinson Markham, is a 
citizen and resident of Duval County, Florida, and is a 
duly appointed, qualified and acting member of said Board 
of Control; that the respondent, Hollis Rinehart, is a citi­
zen 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 resident of Alachua County, Florida, and is the duly 
appointed and qualified president of said University of 
Florida; that the respondent, R. 8. Johnson, is a citizen 
and resident of Alachua County, Florida, and is the duly



6

appointed and qualified registrar of said University of 
Florida.

2
That the petitioner desires to study law in the College 

of Law of the University of Florida which is supported 
and maintained by the taxpayers of the State of Florida 
for the purpose of preparing himself to practice law in the 
State of Florida and for public service therein and has been 
arbitrarily refused admission.

3
That the petitioner has an AB degree from Morehouse 

College of Atlanta, Georgia and in addition thereto, has 
attended the University of Illinois at Urbana, Illinois.

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

petitioner, duly applied for admission to the first year class 
of the College of Law of the University of Florida, for 
attendance at the coming summer session of said school. 
He then possessed, and still possesses, all the scholastic, 
moral and other lawful qualifications prescribed by the 
[fol. 13] Constitution and Statutes of the State of Florida, 
by the Board of Control of the State of Florida and by all 
the duly authorized officers and agents of said Board of 
Control and the University of Florida and the College of 
Law of said University. He was then, and is still, ready 
and willing to pay all uniform fees and charges and to con­
form to all lawful uniform rules and regulations established 
by lawful authority for admission to said class.

5
That contrary to the usual and customary procedure, the 

respondents, E. S. Johnson, forwarded petitioner’s appli­
cation 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 his 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 his application for admission. 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



I

grant his admission into the first year class of the College 
of Law 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 peti­
tioner the equal protection of laws solely on the ground 
of his race and color, contrary to the Constitution of the 
United States.

6
That the College of Law of the University of Florida is 

the only law school in the State of Florida supported and 
maintained by the taxpayers of the State of Florida. That 
the College of Law specializes in law and procedure which 
regulates the Courts of Justice and the government of the 
State of Florida and there is no other law school main- 
[fol.14] tained by the public funds of the State of Florida 
where your petitioner can study Florida law and procedure 
to the same extent and on an equal level of scholarship and 
intensity as in the College of law of the University of 
Florida. That the arbitrary and illegal refusal of the 
respondents, the members of the Board of Control to admit 
your petitioner to the first year of law school solely on the 
grounds of race and color has caused irreparable injury 
and will place him at a distinct disadvantage at the Bar 
of Florida and in the public service of the aforesaid State 
with persons who have had the benefit of the unique prepa­
ration in Florida law and procedure given to white students 
in the law school of the University of Florida.

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.

8
The petitioner further shows that he has no speedy, 

adequate remedy at law and that unless a Writ of Man­



8

damus is issued lie will be denied the right and privilege 
of pursuing the course of instruction in the school of law 
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 
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.
[fol.15-16] Now, therefore, these are to command 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, Thomas W. Bryant, J. Hinson Markham, and 
Hollis Rinehart, 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 William T. Lewis to 
the College of Law 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 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.) Guyte P. McCord, Clerk Supreme Court of 
Florida.

[fol. 17-18] I n t h e  S u pr e m e  C ourt op 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 alter­
native writ of mandamus herein, and for grounds of said 
motion show:

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

precedent to a demand for the writ of mandamus.



9

(3) The relator has not made use of the means man­
ner provided by law to obtain his lawful demands. 

Respectfully submitted
(S.) Richard W. Erwin, Attorney General. (S.) 

Frank J. Heintz, Assistant Attorney General, 
Attorneys for Respondents.

[fol. 19] In t h e  S u pr e m e  C ourt of F lorida

[Title omitted]

Order D e n y in g  M otion  to Q u a sh—December 8, 1949
[fol. 20-21] Upon consideration of the motion of counsel 
for Respondents to quash the alternative writ of mandamus 
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] In t h e  S u pr e m e  C ourt of F lorida

[Title omitted]

A n sw e r  of R espo n d e n t s , J .  T hom as G u r n e y , T hom as W . 
B ryant , and  J. H en so n  M a r k h a m , to A ltern a tiv e  W rit  

of 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 
his petition, desired to study law 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 refusal of admis-



10

[fol. 23] sion 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 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 officers and agents of said Board and University of 
Florida, admission to the University of Florida is per­
missible 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 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 
[fol. 24] refused to grant him admission to the first year 
class of the college of law 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



11

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 constitution of the United States. At 
that time, the Board of Control informed relator, through 
his attorney, that because there was then no actually func­
tioning 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 him such courses of study at a college or university 
agreeable to him in another state, fully equal and as valu­
able as any 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 
college of law at the University of Florida was the only 
tax supported and maintained law school in the State of 
Florida at which a law school 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 Agri­
cultural and Mechanical College for Negroes, at Tallahas­
see, 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 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 pro­
tection 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



12

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 public 
generally and show that the authority of all of the respond­
ents 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 author­
ity of the respondents, J. Hillis Miller and R. S. Johnson, 
is further limited and fixed by the rules and regulations of 
the Board of Control.

9
Further answering the alternative writ, these respond­

ents show that at the time of relator’s demand for admis­
sion to the University of Florida and its college of law, four 
other students of the negro race, scholastically qualified, 
[fol. 26] demanded admission to other departments or col­
leges of the University of Florida, namely, the graduate 
schools of agriculture, chemical engineering, and pharmacy, 
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 as relator was refused admission, they filed their 
several petitions for mandamus, demanding their admis­
sion 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 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,



13

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 curricula 
expanded to meet reasonable demands or requests of quali- 
[fol. 27] tied students; and it has been the long established 
and fixed policy of the State of Florida, the Board of Con­
trol, 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.

11

Whatever rights the relator may have for instruction in 
his requested courses at a State operated institution of 
higher learning within the State, if it be determined that 
he has such rights, would be at the Florida Agricultural 
and Mechanical College for Negroes, and could not be 
lawfully given him 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 learning within the State other than at the Univer­
sity 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



14

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, 
ffol. 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 Legisla­
ture, 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 
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 
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 appro­
priations, 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 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 re­
quest 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 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. These respondents are without 
knowledge or information, except hearsay, as to what may 
have transpired in regard to the matters alleged in said 
[fol. 29-30] alternative writ since the date when their suc­
cessors qualified.

Wherefore, these respondents, naving no longer any 
authority as to anything alleged in said writ, or claim



15

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 been 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.

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

[Title omitted]
A n sw e r  of R espo n d en ts , B oard of C ontrol , a C orporation ,

N. 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 ltern a tiv e  W rit  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 cause, 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 law 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 refusal of admis- 
[fol. 32] sion was arbitrary, and say that, on the contrary, 
admission of relator would have been, and would now be, 
unlawful, for reasons hereinafter set out.



16

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 
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 ap­
peared by his attorney for a hearing upon his 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 
[fol. 33] refused to grant him admission to the first year 
class of the college of law 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 constitution of the United States. At 
that time, the Board of Control informed relator, through 
his attorney, that because there was then no actually func­
tioning Florida State institution of higher learning open



17

to members of the negro race, where the courses of study 
he. desired were offered, the Board was prepared to pro­
vide for him such courses of study at a college or university 
agreeable to him in another state, fully equal and as valu­
able as any 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 

college of law at the University of Florida was the only 
tax supported and maintained law school in the State of 
Florida at which a law school 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 Agri­
cultural and Mechanical College for Negroes, at Talla­
hassee, 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. 34] 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 
University 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 public



18

generally and show that the authority of all of the respond­
ents 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 author­
ity of the respondents, J. Hillis Miller and R. S. Johnson, 
is further limited and fixed by the rules and regulations of 
the Board of Control.

9
Further answering the alternative writ, these respond­

ents show that at the time of relator’s demand for admis­
sion to the University of Florida and its college of law, 
four other students of the negro race, scholastically quali- 
[fol. 35] tied, demanded admission to other departments 
or colleges of the University of Florida, namely, the grad­
uate schools of agriculture, chemical engineering, and 
pharmacy, 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 Col­
lege 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 provisions shall be made for 
both. In pursuance of said constitutional and statutory 
requirements, 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 Agricultural 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



19

the respondent, Board of Control, subject to the super­
vising power and authority of the State Board of Educa­
tion of Florida. From time to time, when the need there­
for arose, courses were added at said institutions of higher 
learning and the curricula expanded to meet reasonable 
[fol. 36] demands or requests of qualified students; and it 
has been the long established 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 de­
mand therefor appears.

11
Whatever rights the relator may have for instruction in 

his requested courses at a State operated institution of 
higher learning within the State, if it be determined that 
he has such rights, would be at the Florida Agricultural and 
Mechanical College for Negroes, and could not be lawfully 
given him 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 
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, he 
has made no further application for admission to any 
subsequent 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 
his requested courses at any future term or semester at any 
State institution of higher learning.

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 
[fol. 37] its budget for the ensuing biennium for the Flor­
ida Agricultural and Mechanical College for Negroes, funds 
for the establishment of schools or colleges of law, chem­
ical engineering, pharmacy, journalism, social work, library



20

science, 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 
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 
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 appro­
priations, 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 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 quali­
fied as members of the Board of Control; and, thereupon, 
said three respondents ceased to be members of the Board 
[fol. 38] or to have any further authority and could take no 
further action in the premises, and are now without power 
or 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 sum­
mer 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 law, and the 
other courses demanded by other Negro applicants, as 
hereinabove set out, at the Florida Agricultural and Me­



21

chanical 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 author­
ities 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 de­
clines to accept out-of-state scholarship or other provision 
which may be made for his instruction in the courses he 
has requested elsewhere than at a State institution estab­
lished 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 Control, has 
made provision for relator’s immediate admission and 
enrollment at the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical Col­
lege for Negroes, in its law school, established at that 
institution, and is ready to there admit him, provided the 
relator shall make his 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 State 
[fol. 39] institution of higher learning. And, 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 Negroes, 
in Tallahassee, upon his said renewed timely application 
for instruction in said course of study, the Board of Con­
trol has made provision for his instruction in said course of 
study, as in said resolution provided, at the only other 
institution of higher learning in the State of Florida offer­
ing such course, until such time as adequate and comparable 
facilities and personnel for such course of study, substan­
tially equal to those provided at any tax supported insti­
tution of higher learning in the State, can be obtained and 
physically set up at the Florida Agricultural and Mechan­
ical 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 dis­
missed.

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



22

I  do certify that copy hereof has been 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.

[fo l. 40] E x h ib it  “ A ”  to A n sw er

R eso lu tio n

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 sufficient 
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 reason­
able 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 un­
likely; 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 provisions shall 
be made for both” ;

Now, therefore, in order to comply with the constitution 
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, mechanical 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 such courses 
at other State institutions of higher learning 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. 41] installing said personnel, facilities, and equipment



23

for such courses at the Florida Agricultural and Mechan­
ical 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 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 Flor­
ida state operated institutions of learning for white stu­
dents, 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 resolved, in the 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 
where 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 authoi’ities of such last described state 
[fols. 42-43] 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 Agri­
cultural and Mechanical College for Negroes, substantially 
equal opportunity for education in said courses as may 
be provided for white students under like circumstances. 
In providing such education, the authorities of both insti­
tutions shall at all times observe all requirements of the



24

laws of the State of Florida in the matter of segregation 
of the races, etc.

Be it further resolved, that such instruction and facilities 
to be provided by the state institution of higher learning, 
temporarily, as herein directed, shall be provided in such 
manner as will insure to graduates in such courses the same 
privileges and benefits as may be accorded by law to grad­
uates of the same courses in institutions of higher learning 
in the State established for white students.

Be it further resolved, that actual cost of supplying said 
instruction shall be accurately determined and the institu­
tion reimbursed therefor from such funds appropriated for 
the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical College for Ne­
groes as may lawfully be used for that purpose.

[fols. 44-45] In t h e  S u pr e m e  C ourt of F lorida

[Title omitted]

M otion  for  P erem pto ry  W r it— Filed January 19, 1950.
Comes now the Relator, William T. Lewis and moves the 

Court to 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 University 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. Irvin, Attorney General and Frank J. Heintz, Assistant 
Attorney General, attorneys for respondents, by mail, this 
17th day of January, A. D., 1950.

Alex Akerman, Jr., Attorney for Relator.



25

[fol. 46] In t h e  S u p r e m e  C ourt op F lorida

June Term, A. D. 1950

En Banc. 

M andam us

T h e  S tate op F lorida, ex rel., 
W il l ia m  T . L e w is , Relator,

vs.

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

A case of original jurisdiction—Mandamus
Alex J. Akerman, Jr., for Relator; Richard W. Ervin, 

Attorney and Frank J. Heintz, Assistant Attorney Gen­
eral for Respondents.

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

The relator, William T. Lewis, is a negro citizen and 
resident of the State of Florida. Except as to the matter of 
race and color, he 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 1949 Lewis applied for admission to the first 
year class of the College of Law of the University of 
Florida. His application was denied on the sole ground 
that he was a member of the negro race. Lewis thereupon 
[fol. 47] instituted this mandamus action, alleging the mat­
ters above set forth, averring that the University of Flor­
ida is the only tax-supported university in the state at 
which courses of law are offered, and charging that the 
refusal of the governing authorities to admit him solely 
because he was a negro constituted an arbitrary and illegal 
denial of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed him 
by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. 

In due course the members of the Board of Control filed



26

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 
relator, Lewis, the same opportunities in respect to courses 
in law as were made available to the relator in that case 
with reference to law school training; that is to say, offered 
him the opportunity to secure instruction in law at a uni­
versity or college outside the State of Florida, where negro 
students are eligible for admission, and as an alternative, 
offered to enroll him at the Florida Agricultural and Me­
chanical College for Negroes, in the college of law recently 
established by the Board at that institution and to make 
temporary provision for his instruction in the College of 
Law 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 Agri­
cultural and Mechanical College for Negroes at the time 
of his enrollment.

A motion has been made for the issuance of peremptory 
writ notwithstanding the return filed by the respondents, 
on the ground that the opportunities offered to the relator 
do not afford him the equal protection of the laws guaran­
teed by the Federal Constitution.

Every question raised by the parties in this suit has been 
considered and decided by this Court in State ex rel. Haw­
kins v. Board of Control, supra, and hence it follows that 
[fols. 48-49] 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.
Adams, C. J., Terrell, Chapman, Thomas, Hobson & Rob­

erts, J. J., concur.

[fol. 50] I n t h e  S u pr e m e  Court op F lorida 

[Title omitted]

M otion  eor P erem pto ry  W r it— Filed May 16, 1951.
Comes now the Relator, William T. Lewis by his under­

signed Attorney and moves the Court to issue a Peremp­
tory Writ of Mandamus directed to the Respondents, Board 
of Control of Florida; N. B. Jordan and Hollis Rinehart as



27

members of the Board of Control of Florida; J. Hollis 
Miller as President of the University of Florida; and R. S. 
Johnson, Registrar of the University of Florida, requiring 
said Respondents 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 applies for further relief in this 
cause in accordance with the Court’s Mandate and lequests 
this Court to issue a peremptory writ of mandamus at this 
time as prayed for in Relator’s complaint requiring the 
Respondents to admit him instanter to the University of 
Florida in order that he may thereby receive educational 
opportunities and advantages equal to those available to 
white persons at the University of Florida.
[fols. 51-52] 2. That the Relator has exhausted all reason­
able means available to him 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 his chosen profession; that the creation of 
the purported school of law 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, legal education at the Florida A & M Col­
lege'for Negroes; that in fact there is no law school at the 
Florida A & M College; and that the only state-supported 
institution where Relator can secure educational oppor­
tunities and advantages for a legal education equal to those 
available to white students is at the University of Florida; 
that no steps have been made to provide Relator with edu­
cational opportunities and advantages with the state since 
the decision of this Court, on August 1, 1950; and that 
Relator has now lost one whole year in which he could have 
been pursuing a legal education.

Wherefore, in accordance with the decision of this Court,



28

on August 1, 1950, Relator hereby applied for further relief 
and requests the Court to issue a peremptory writ of Man­
damus ordering admission as a regular student in the law 
school of the University of Florida.

(S.) H. E. Hill, Attorney for Relator, 525 Second 
Ave., Daytona Beach, Florida.

[fo ls . 53-54] I n  t h e  S u pr e m e  Court op F lorida

June Term, A. D. 1951

En Banc.

Supreme Court No. 21,139

T h e  S tate op F lorida, ex  re l.,
W il l ia m  T. L e w is , Relator,

vs.

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

A Case of Original Jurisdiction—Mandamus
H. E. Hill, for Relator; Richard W. Ervin, Attorney Gen­

eral and Frank J. Heintz, Assistant Attorney General, 
for Respondents.

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

The motion for the entry of peremptory writ of man­
damus notwithstanding the return filed by the Respondents 
in this proceeding is denied on authority of the ruling in 
The State of Florida ex rel, Yirgil D. Hawkins, Relator, vs. 
Board of Control, a body corporate etc., et al., Respond­
ents, rendered this 15th day of June 1951.
Sebring, C. J., Terrell, Chapman, Adams, Hobson and Rob­

erts, J. J., Concur; Thomas J., not participating.



29

[foL 55] In t h e  S u pr e m e  C ourt op F lorida 

[Title omitted]

M otion  D ir ec tin g  Cer tific a tio n  op 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.

Cer tific a te  of S ervice

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.

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

[fol. 56] Clerk’s Certificate to foregoing transcript omitted 
in printing.

[fol. 57] S u pr e m e  C ourt of t h e  U n it e d  S ta tes , O ctober

T e r m , 1951

No. —

S tate e x  rel  H a w k in s , et a l., Petitioners, 

vs.

B oard of C ontrol

Order E x ten d in g  T im e  to F ile  P e t it io n  for  W r it  of
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 15th, 1951.

Stanley Reed, Associate Justice of the Supreme 
Court of the United States.

Dated this 13th day of September, 1951.

7074