Court Opinion

ID: 9824662
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:07:01.057033+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:57.254252
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Since the decision of this case, the Act approved August 22,1923, has been called to our attention for the first time. That act provides: “That in all Counties in this State having more than 200,000' population according to the last or any succeeding Federal Census, the official stenographer in such counties shall not charge for the attendance of himself or assistant upon court and taking shorthand notes, exceeding $10.00 per day, nor. shall he charge for transcribing into longhand exceeding 15c for each hundred words; provided, however, that such stenographer shall not be required to perform any work or duty under this Act unless the party requiring his services shall first pay the fees hereinabove allowed to be charged, or shall give security for the payment thereof, to be approved by the official stenographer or by the Cleric of the Court in which his services are to be rendered.” (Italics supplied.) Acts 1923, p. 203.
Assuming that this is a general and not a local law, and that it was constitutionally ■enacted, it does not meet the situation presented in this case; it imposes no duty upon the reporter and his assistant, other than such as he voluntarily assumes, and fixes the compensation therefor.
The services were rendered in the instant case, not under the provisions of that act, but under the provisions of sections 6574, 6576 of the Code, in pursuance of the order of the court. The quoted act, as appears on its face, relates to service in the law court. The “Clerk of the Court,” not the register, is authorized to approve the security.
Still, if it he conceded that the act applies to services rendered in the equity division, it clearly does not contemplate that the reporter or a stenographer, on the appointment of the chancellor, could enter upon the performance of the duty of taking testimony that becomes a part of the record in the case and essential to a decision on the merits and to a review on appeal, and then refuse to transcribe the testimony, .unless his fees are paid or secured by the parties in advance. Such construction would subordinate the administration of justice to the right to collect costs, and to so construe the act would render it in conflict with section 13 of the Constitution which provides “That all courts «hall be open; and that every person, for any injury done him, in his lands, goods, person, or reputation, shall have a remedy by due process of law; and right and justice shall be ■ administered without sale, denial, or delay.” (Italics supplied.) Mickle v. State (Ala. Sup.) 21 So. 66 ; Hines v. Hines, 203 Ala. 633, 84 So. 712; Ex parte Eubank, 206 Ala. S, 89 So. 656; Stoudenmire v. Brown, 48 Ala. 699; Whitworth v. Anderson, 54 Ala. 33 ; Lassitter v. Lee, 68 Ala. 287; Hartwell et al. v. State ex rel. Willis, 225 Ala. 208, 142 So. 678.
The insistence, that to compel the transcription of the testimony by the stenographer who reported the case would be, in effect, a confiscation of his energies without compensation, is without merit. The law prescribes the fees for such services and provides for the taxation as costs, and such services are usually performed without payment therefor in advance by commissioners and examiners. If the reporter desires pay or security in advance, he should arrange therefor before h© enters upon the reporting of the case at all.
The application is therefore overruled.
ANDERSON, O. ■ J., and THOMAS and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.