TOLEDO, ST. LOUIS & KANSAS CITY RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
CONTINENTAL TRUST COMPANY; ROSE V. CONTINENTAL TRUST COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Toledo, St. Louis & Kansas City Railroad Company and Rose petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari review of Circuit Court of Appeals decisions, but the clerk of the Circuit Court of Appeals refused to certify a printed copy of the record without full payment for a manuscript reproduction, claiming he had no authority to reduce fees despite having already supervised and distributed the printed copies. The Court held that the clerk's prior preparation, indexing, supervision, and distribution of the printed record satisfied the certification requirements, and since the printed copies were shown to be accurate transcripts of the original record, the Court treated them as properly certified and denied the petitions for certiorari on the merits.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court.
These petitions for certiorari were accompanied by a motion for an order dispensing with the authentication and certification by the clerk of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of the transcript of the record of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio, on which the appeals mentioned in the petitions were heard and submitted to and decided by said Circuit Court of Appeals. The clerk of the Circuit Court of Appeals has certified the transcript of the record and proceedings in that court, “except the transcripts from the Circuit Court, and except also the printed briefs of counsel filed in ray office in said causes.” It appears that the transcript of-record from the Circuit Court was duly certified by the clerk of the Circuit Court, was filed in the Circuit Court of Appeals, and thereafter was printed under the supervision, direction and control of the clerk of the Circuit Court of Appeals under and pursuant to the rules of that court, and that after the decision of the cases there, which had been heard and decided on one record, petitioners requested the clerk to certify, for the purpose of' these applications, the transcript so printed under his supervision without requiring petitioners to pay the entire cost of a reproduction of the same in manuscript, but that the clerk refused to make any deduction by reason of the premises, and insisted that he had no power or authority'so to do.
Under the third subdivision of rule 37 of this court, where application is made for certiorari under section six of the judiciary act of March 3,1891, it is provided that “ a certified copy of the entire record of the case in the Circuit Court of Appeals shall be furnished to this court by the applicant, as part of the application.”
The table of fees and costs in the Circuit Court of Appeals, established by this court in pursuance of the act of Congress of February 19, 1897, 169 U. S. 740, provides that the clerks of the Circuit Courts of Appeals may charge, among other items, for:
Affixing a certificate and a seal to any paper.......... $1 00
Preparing the reeord.for the printer, indexing the same, supervising the printing and-distributing the copies, for each printed page of the record and index...... 25
Making a manuscript copy of the record, when required by the rules, for each one hundred words (But nothing in addition* for supervising the printing)............ 20
The record in these cases having been prepared for the printer, indexed, the printing supervised, and copies thereof distributed by the clerk of the Circuit Court of Appeals, and the clerk having been paid therefor, we are of opinion that our rule would have been fully complied with by the certificate of that clerk to one of the printed copies which he had so prepared, indexed, supervised and distributed, and which he, therefore,.knew, was an accurate transcript of the record from the Circuit Court; and, as it is shown, and is not denied, that the printed copies furnished us are in fact correct copies •of the Circuit Court record, we have treated them as if that record had been duly certified to us by the clerk of the Circuit Court of Appeals.
The applications for certiorari are -
Denied-
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Montgomery v. State, 53 Fla. 115 (Fla. 1907)…fered other evidence in support thereof. Of course, the challenge, even though sworn to by the defendant, if controverted by the state, must have been supported by other evidence on the part of the defendant. Carter v. State of Texas, 177 U. S. 442, 44 L. Ed. 442, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 687; Tarrance v. State, 43 Fla. 446, 30 South. Rep. 685. The challenge was demurred to. The state did not deny the facts set up in the challenge, as the court stated. The court made no ruling on the challenge before the demurrer th…1 / 2
-
Nat'l Treas. Emps. Union v. Nixon, 492 F.2d 587 (D.C. Cir. 1974)…ognize the respondent’s claims, the Court, after noting that often a statute requires interpretation by the public officer whose duties may be defined therein, quoted (at 318-319, 50 S.Ct. at 105) the following passage from Roberts v. United States, 176 U.S. 219, 231, 20 S.Ct. 376, 44 L.Ed. 443 (1900): * * *• Every statute to some extent requires construction by the public officer whose duties may be defined therein. Such officer must read the law, and he must therefore, in a certain sense, construe it, in…1 / 2
-
MacALISTER v. Guterma, 263 F.2d 65 (2d Cir. 1958)…89 U.S. 479, 496-497, 53 S.Ct. 721, 727, 77 L.Ed. 1331. See also Green-berg v. Giannini, 2 Cir., 1944, 140 F. 2d 550, 552, 152 A.L.R. 966; Toledo, St. L. & K. C. R. Co. v. Continental Trust Co., 6 Cir., 1899, 95 F. 497, 506, certiorari denied, 1900, 176 U.S. 219, 20 S.Ct. 383, 44 L.Ed. 442; National Nut Co. of Cal. v. Susu Nut Co., D.C.N.D.Ill.1945, 61 F. Supp. 86. By such a procedure, one general counsel is not substituted for the counsel of each party plaintiff’s choice. The function of general counsel i…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence