Cook & Russ v. Gulf Refining Co. of Louisiana, 26208

• Court: Supreme Court of Louisiana
• Writing for the Court: ROGERS, J.
• Citation: 162 La. 945,111 So. 337
• Parties: COOK & RUSS v. GULF REFINING CO. OF LOUISIANA
• Docket Number: 26208
• Decision Date: 03 January 1927

111 So. 337

162 La. 945

COOK & RUSS
v.
GULF REFINING CO. OF LOUISIANA

No. 26208

Supreme Court of Louisiana

January 3, 1927

Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Mark M. Boatner, Judge.

Suit by Cook & Ross against the Gulf Refining Company of Louisiana. From the judgment, plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

Harry P. Gamble, of New Orleans, for appellants.

Spearing & Mabry, of New Orleans, and J. S. Atkinson, of Shreveport, for appellee.

ROGERS, J. ST. PAUL, J., concurs in the decree.

OPINION [111 So. 338]

[162 La. 946] ROGERS, J.

The facts of this case are tersely and correctly stated in the able opinion herein handed down by the district judge as follows, viz.:

"The plaintiffs are shorthand reporters, living at Shreveport. They were employed by the defendant's attorney to report the trial of a case at Homer in the district court of Claiborne parish, and to furnish each morning before the opening of court a transcript of the proceedings of the day before, with three additional copies. There was no understanding with regard to their compensation, except that the attorney was told by Mr. Russ, with whom he dealt, that the furnishing of the 'daily copy' would add to the cost.

"The trial began on Monday, January 3, 1922, and was concluded on January 14, 1922. During the first week the court sat from 9 o'clock in the morning until 6 o'clock in the evening, with a recess of one hour at midday; after that a night session of two hours was added. The first week the work was done by the two plaintiffs; for the second it was necessary to employ an additional stenographer."

On the conclusion of their work, plaintiffs rendered defendant, through its attorney who had employed them, a bill for $ 3,050.50 to cover their services and expenses, the expenses [162 La. 947] being charged on a per diem basis of $ 10 for each of the three stenographers while attending court, and amounting to $ 220. Defendant declined to pay the bill on the ground that it was unreasonable, and this suit was instituted to enforce collection. The judge a quo allowed plaintiffs $ 1,118.08 for their services and $ 161 for their expenses, a total of $ 1,279.08. Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with judgment, and appealed therefrom.

In support of the correctness of the charge for their services, plaintiffs have introduced into the record the testimony of four shorthand reporters employed in the courts of the city of New Orleans, together with the depositions of a number of shorthand reporters living in other cities of the country. All these witnesses agree that plaintiffs are entitled...