Case ID: app-dc_37/html/0125-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Mr. Chief Justice Shepard", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LEE v. WELCH.
    Appeal and Errob.
    This court will not, on motion of the appellant, require part only of the record to be printed, the appellee having the right to insist upon the printing of the entire record. If, on the hearing, it appears that unnecessary matter has been required to be printed, the costs of the same will be taxed against the party causing it. (Citing Smith v. Lancaster, ante, 25.)
    No. 2260.
    Submitted March 25, 1911.
    Decided April 3, 1911.
    Hearing on a motion by the appellant for an order directing the clerk to have the record in the case on appeal printed in accordance with a designation theretofore filed by the appellant, and to omit from the record to be printed the portions thereof designated by the appellee.
    
      Overruled.
    
    
      Mr. Henry E. Davis and Mr. Chas. A. Keigwin for the motion.
    
      Mr. ~W. D. Davidge opposed.
   Mr. Chief Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the-Court:

The motion is denied. The court cannot undertake to examine an unprinted record to ascertain whether matter is relevant or important to the hearing. Counsel have the right to insist, upon the printing of the entire record. If the entire record be-printed, and on the hearing it is made evident that unnecessary or unimportant matter has been required to be printed, the costs of the same will be taxed against the party causing it. See Smith v. Lancaster, ante, 25.

Thereafter, the appeal was dismissed for failure to print,, and the mandate of this court was sent to the lower court. Subsequently, a motion by the appellant to recall the mandate- and reinstate the appeal was denied.