Ruffin v. Page

Mississippi Supreme Court

Ruffin v. Page

67 So. 648, 109 Miss. 12

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 15, 1915

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 67 So. 648 (Ruffin v. Page) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ruffin v. Page, 67 So. 648, 109 Miss. 12 (Mich. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a motion to strike the stenographer’s transcript from the record, on the ground that it was filed by the stenographer after the expiration of the time within which he was empowered so to do, has “never been signed by the trial judge nor been agreed on by the parties, nor become apart of the record by operation of law, ’ ’ and is incorrect in a material particular. In support of the allegation that the transcript is incorrect in a material particular, an affidavit has been filed setting- forth the omission of certain testimony which was introduced on the trial. It does not appear from this testimony alone that it is material to the issues upon which we will be called to pass on this appeal, and unless it does so appear the transcript cannot, under the provisions of subdivision “d,” sec. 1, ch. Ill, Laws 1910, be stricken from the record.

The case will therefore be remanded to the docket so that counsel for appellee, if they so desire, may point out, hy brief or otherwise, wherein this evidence is material; and, when this is done, the court will examine the record and determine whether or not it is in fact material.

Remanded.

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

Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a motion to strike the stenographer’s transcript from the record, on the ground that it was filed by the stenographer after the expiration of the time within which he was empowered so to do, has “never been signed by the trial judge nor been agreed on by the parties, nor become apart of the record by operation of law, ’ ’ and is incorrect in a material particular. In support of the allegation that the transcript is incorrect in a material particular, an affidavit has been filed setting- forth the omission of certain testimony which was introduced on the trial. It does not appear from this testimony alone that it is material to the issues upon which we will be called to pass on this appeal, and unless it does so appear the transcript cannot, under the provisions of subdivision “d,” sec. 1, ch. Ill, Laws 1910, be stricken from the record.

The case will therefore be remanded to the docket so that counsel for appellee, if they so desire, may point out, hy brief or otherwise, wherein this evidence is material; and, when this is done, the court will examine the record and determine whether or not it is in fact material.

Remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 So. 648, 109 Miss. 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruffin-v-page-miss-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack