Court Opinion

ID: 9669699
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:06:40.76876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:59.849707
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
MERRILL, Justice.
In brief on rehearing, appellant calls to our attention a stipulation on transcript paper, signed by counsel for both parties, which states that the minute entry of February 11, 1963, from which we quoted in the original opinion that demurrers were sustained as to replications “2 through 35,” should have read “2 through 36.”
*48This sheet of paper was filed in this court prior to submission, was folded and placed between pages of the transcript, but it escaped our notice prior to the application for rehearing. It was not bound to the transcript nor did it carry any signatures other than those of counsel. Had we noticed it, we would have mentioned it in the original opinion; and, for that reason, we are extending the opinion.
The stipulation signed by counsel is not sufficient to impeach, alter, change or vary the minute entry as shown in the record.
“ ‘The record filed for the purpose of appeal imports absolute verity. It is the sole, conclusive, and unimpeachable evidence of the proceedings in the lower court. If incomplete or incorrect, amendment or correction must be sought by appropriate proceedings rather than by impeachment on the hearing in the appellate court. Accordingly, the record cannot be impeached, changed, altered, or varied on appeal by an ex parte and unauthorized certificate of the trial judge or of the clerk, nor by statements in the briefs of counsel, nor by affidavits or other evidence or matters dehors the record.’ 4 Corp.Jur. 512, 513, § 2287; Chapman v. Holding, 54 Ala. 61; Prinz v. Weber, 126 Ala. 146, 28 So. 10.
“This rule is based on the soundest policy. If it were otherwise, appellate courts would be kept busy with hearing and settling such controversies, and confusion and uncertainty would always prevail. * * * ”
Union Mut. Ins. Co. v. Robinson, 216 Ala. 527, 113 So. 587; Morris v. State, 268 Ala. 60, 104 So.2d 810; Evans v. Avery, 272 Ala. 230, 130 So.2d 373.
If the transcript, certified by the clerk as being a true and correct copy of the proceedings, is incorrect, or omits something, the remedy is to ask for a writ of certiorari to complete it. Morris v. State, 268 Ala. 60, 104 So.2d 810; Johnson v. Bryars, 264 Ala. 243, 86 So.2d 371, and cases cited. This is the only method by which this court can secure a properly certified and authenticated transcript. The authorities cited supra show that this rule has been applied even though the changes or alterations sought were supported by affidavits of the court officials or that “serious hardship” would result.
Since the minute entry in the record shows that replication 36 was before the trial court, we have decided the case on that basis, disregarding the stipulation of counsel. We hasten to say that this in no way impinges on integrity of counsel. We know them to be gentlemen of honor and of the highest integrity.
Application for rehearing overruled.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.