HODGES
v.
VAUGHAN
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 Supreme Court denied a motion for certiorari in a case where the petitioner argued that part of the lower court record was omitted from the transcript submitted to the Court, holding that certiorari was not the appropriate remedy when the record itself was complete but merely lacked the clerk's certificate of completeness. The Court suggested that the petitioner could instead withdraw the transcript, obtain the proper certificate from the lower court clerk, and resubmit it.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court.
A motion for certiorari is founded upon a suggestion of diminution, and is designed to bring up some part of the record loft back and not included in the transcript. When first presented, and without explanation, the court was inclined to grant the motion, but upon further consideration, we are all of the opinion that it must be denied, as the writ of certiorari is not a proper remedy for the alleged defect. Nothing is omitted from the transcript which is a part of the record in the court below. On the contrary, the only complaint is that the clerk has not appended to the transcript his certificate that it contains the full record. Such a defect, in a case of contumacy, might be remedied by a mandamus, but no application of that sort is made nor is it suggested that there are any grounds for such an application. Under the circumstances the motion for certiorari is denied, and leave is granted to the plaintiff in error to withdraw the transcript to enable him to apply to the clerk of Ihe court below to append thereto the necessary certificate.