Scarborough v. Harrison Naval Stores Co.
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the circuit court of Harrison county. Hon. William H. Hardy, Judge. Scarborough, appellant, was plaintiff in the court below; the Naval Stores Company, appellee, was defendant there. From a judgment in defendant’s favor plaintiff appealed to the supreme court.
Read the full summary
From the circuit court of Harrison county. Hon. William H. Hardy, Judge. Scarborough, appellant, was plaintiff in the court below; the Naval Stores Company, appellee, was defendant there. From a judgment in defendant’s favor plaintiff appealed to the supreme court. When the case reached the supreme court the appellee moved the court to strike, from the transcript the stenographer’s report of the evidence (called the stenographer’S' notes) because of a failure by the clerk of the trial court to comply with Code 1906, § 797, providing that upon the filing of such report (notes) by the…
1Opinion of the Court
Whitfield, O. J.,
delivered the (first) opinion of the court, sustaining the motion.
This is a motion to strike out the stenographer’s notes because one of the firms representing the defendant below, Ford, White & Ford, was not notified in any way by the clerk, as required by Code 1906, § 797, that said notes had been received by the clerk and were on file. There is a conflict of evidence between the deputy circuit clerk, on the one hand, and Mr. Ira Ford and Dr. W. R. Kell, the family physician of Ira Ford, on the other hand. The statute makes it the imperative duty of the circuit clerk to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Ford v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1934
- B. F. Goodrich Rubber Co. v. HollandMississippi Supreme Court · 1931
- Bogle v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1929