Boucher Inventions, Ltd. v. Sola Electric Co.

District of Columbia

Boucher Inventions, Ltd. v. Sola Electric Co.

1 F.R.D. 631, 48 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 689, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2011

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedJanuary 24, 1941

DocketCivil Action No. 615

StatusPublished

This text of 1 F.R.D. 631 (Boucher Inventions, Ltd. v. Sola Electric Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boucher Inventions, Ltd. v. Sola Electric Co., 1 F.R.D. 631, 48 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 689, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2011 (D.D.C. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

BAILEY, Justice.

Affidavits contrary to those of the defendants were submitted to the Court and filed in the records of the case, being those of Aubrey E. Noble, filed January 16, 1941; George Gordon Payne, the court reporter who wrote the transcript of the testimony, filed January 16, 1941; supplementary affidavit of George Gordon Payne filed January 23, 1941; Herbert S. Ward and John Howard Joynt, attorneys for plaintiffs, filed January 23, 1941.

The transcript of the testimony made by the reporter is in accordance with my recollection of the testimony. This was my recollection when the question of the correctness of the transcript was first made, but I have had some difficulty in understanding the proper practice under the new Rules. There is no official reporter in our Court, and it would seem that there is no “official record” in the sense that the transcript of testimony by the reporter is a “record”, and it would seem that the power of the Court so far as a statement of the evidence is concerned, is limited to settling any dispute between the parties as to what the evidence before the Court actually was.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BAILEY, Justice.

Affidavits contrary to those of the defendants were submitted to the Court and filed in the records of the case, being those of Aubrey E. Noble, filed January 16, 1941; George Gordon Payne, the court reporter who wrote the transcript of the testimony, filed January 16, 1941; supplementary affidavit of George Gordon Payne filed January 23, 1941; Herbert S. Ward and John Howard Joynt, attorneys for plaintiffs, filed January 23, 1941.

The transcript of the testimony made by the reporter is in accordance with my recollection of the testimony. This was my recollection when the question of the correctness of the transcript was first made, but I have had some difficulty in understanding the proper practice under the new Rules. There is no official reporter in our Court, and it would seem that there is no “official record” in the sense that the transcript of testimony by the reporter is a “record”, and it would seem that the power of the Court so far as a statement of the evidence is concerned, is limited to settling any dispute between the parties as to what the evidence before the Court actually was.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 F.R.D. 631, 48 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 689, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2011, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boucher-inventions-ltd-v-sola-electric-co-dcd-1941.