Case Name: David Scarborough v. Harrison Naval Stores Company
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1909-03
Citations: 95 Miss. 497
Docket Number: 
Parties: David Scarborough v. Harrison Naval Stores Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Mississippi Reports
Volume: 95
Pages: 497–502

Head Matter:
David Scarborough v. Harrison Naval Stores Company.
[51 South. 274; 52 South. 143.]
Motion to Strike Stenographer’s Report of the Evidence from the Record.
1° Appeals. Stenographer’s report of evidence. Notice to attorneys. Code 1906, § 797.
Where the stenographer’s report of the evidence introduced in a case is in fact examined and approved by a party litigant, in person or by his attorney, his motion in the supreme court to strike the same from the transcript of the record will not be sustained because the clerk of the trial court failed to comply with Code 1906, § 797, providing that upon the filing of such report by the stenographer the clerk shall notify each attorney interested in the case that the same has been filed.
2. Attorney and Client. Acts of attorney. Matters of procedure. Oonclusivenss.
The act of an attorney, so far as the procedure in a case is concerned, are binding on his client.
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 stenographer the clerk shall notify each attorney interested in the case that the same has been filed.
The facts are fully stated in the several opinions of the court; controlling and dissenting.
H. L. Doty; Ford, White & Ford, and McWillie & Thompson, for the motion.
F. M. Barber, contra.

Opinion:
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 notify each attorney or firm. The language of the statute is as follows: "As soon as the stenographer's notes, transcribed, shall be first received by the clerk of the circuit court, he shall notify each attorney, or firm, interested in such case, by mail or in person, that said notes were received and are on file." In this case it appears that the firm of Doty^ & Elmer were first employed by the appellee corporation, and filed certain pleas, and that later some members of this corporation employed another firm, Ford, White & Ford, to represent them in the case, and they filed certain other pleas.
. It is a very easy matter for the circuit clerk to comply with this very wholesome statute. It is .his duty to give this notice, as the statute requires, to each firm interested in the case, and this duty he should discharge promptly and carefully. We do not care to say more about the testimony in this case on this point than that the testimony does not show, satisfactorily, that the clerk complied with this duty. He has not met the burden imposed upon him by the law, by a sufficient showing. The statute means exactly what it says — that he shall notify each attorney or each firm interested in the case. For very obvious reasons, each separate firm interested in the case should be notified, and in this case it is, we think,. sufficiently clear that the firm of Ford, White & Ford were not notified in any manner that these notes were filed within the proper time. If we were to hold that it would be sufficient to notify one firm, where two are interested, it might be that the leading firm might never have notice, and yet the statute be held to be complied with. It is not for us to question the wisdom of the legislature in providing strictly, as it has done, that the clerks shall notify each attorney or firm interested. We cannot legislate. Our duty is simply to enforce the statute as it is written.
The motion is sustained, and the notes striclcen out.