Girard College Trusteeship
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
138 A.2d 844 (1958)
- Written by Melissa Hammond, JD
Facts
William Ashe Foust and Robert Felder (plaintiffs), poor Black male orphans, were denied admission to Girard College. The college had been established in the will of Stephen Girard with express restrictions on admission to poor White male orphans. The will named the city of Philadelphia by its mayor, aldermen, and citizens as trustee, but for years it had been administered by the Board of Directors of City Trusts of Philadelphia, which was accountable to the orphans’ court. That court found that the board was required to abide by the admission restrictions contained in the trust, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed. However, the United States Supreme Court reversed that judgment and found that the board was a state agency and its refusal to admit Foust and Felder to the college was discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated the orphans’ court’s decrees and remanded, and the orphans’ court removed the board as trustee and substituted private trustees. Foust and Felder appealed, arguing that the Supreme Court’s mandate required the board to admit them to the college. The issue before the court was whether the orphans’ court’s action in finding new trustees was inconsistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Jones, C.J.)
Dissent (Musmanno, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
