Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

EVERETT v. HARRON (01/03/55)

January 3, 1955

EVERETT
v.
HARRON, APPELLANT.



Appeal, No. 233, Jan. T., 1954, from decree of Court of Common Pleas No. 2 of Philadelphia County, June T., 1952, No. 6090, in case of Leo Everett et al. v. Paul F. Harron et al., trading as Boulevard Pools and Boulevard Swimming and Tennis Club et al. Decree affirmed.

COUNSEL

Max C. Baylinson, with him Baylinson & Lewis, for appellants.

James K. Baker and Julian E. Goldberg, for appellees.

Jerome J. Shestack, First DeputyCity Solicitor, with him Richard D. Solo, Assistant City Solicitor, Murray L. Schwartz, Deputy City Solicitor and Abraham L. Freedman, City Solicitor, for City of Philadelphia, amicus curiae.

Before Stern, C.j., Stearne, Jones, Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno and Arnold, J.j.

Author: Stern

[ 380 Pa. Page 125]

OPINION BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HORACE STERN

Defendants appeal from a decree of the court below enjoining them from refusing to admit plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, to an establishment known as "Boulevard Pools" and "Boulevard Swimming and Tennis Club."

Defendants own and operate an establishment situate at Roosevelt Boulevard and Princeton Avenue in the City of Philadelphia. It covers about 7 1/2 acres and comprises four pools of various sizes and depths for swimming and bathing, a tennis court, a basketball court, a volley-ball court, ten ping-pong tables, swings for children, a large tract of lawn for sunbathing and picnicking, a sand beach, refreshment stands where ice cream, sandwiches and soft drinks are sold, and a building with dressing and bathing facilities consisting of 7200 lockers and stalls and four large shower rooms containing individual showers.

Although not admitting that their establishment constituted "an amusement or recreation park" defendants do admit that the swimming pools were operated for "public accommodation." A single admission charge entitles a person to partake of all the privileges. Several thousand persons patronize the park on warm days during the summer season.

The court found, and indeed the defendants further admit, that the policy and practice of the establishment is to exclude Negroes from the use of all facilities in the establishment. Defendants also frankly admit that a crude attempt to give the enterprise the character of a private club in order to justify a selective admission of applicants was but a device to keep Negroes from the swimming polls. Plaintiffs, several of whom are Negroes who were thus excluded, filed a complaint in equity seeking an injunction, which the

[ 380 Pa. Page 126]

    court ultimately granted, restraining defendants from refusing admission to their premises of plaintiffs or any others ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.