Giddings v. Starks, 32613
| Decision Date | 03 January 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 32613,32613 |
| Citation | 240 Ga. 496,241 S.E.2d 208 |
| Parties | Samuel S. GIDDINGS et al. v. Charles L. STARKS et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
E. Lynn Mitchell, Atlanta, for appellants.
Elkins & Flournoy, Thomas M. Flournoy, Jr., Columbus, for appellees.
This appeal arises out of a case involving title to land. After losing at trial, appellants filed an extraordinary motion with this court seeking a trial transcript for their appeal. By order, we directed the superior court to hold a hearing to determine whether appellants could compel the reporter to prepare a transcript under our holding in Harrington v. Harrington, 224 Ga. 305, 161 S.E.2d 862 (1968). The trial court held that they could not, and this opinion deals only with that issue.
In findings of fact the trial court found that appellants had failed to make any arrangements prior to trial for the reporting of the case. The official court reporter did record the proceedings in accordance with her arrangements with counsel for appellees, and at three times during the trial she asked counsel for appellants if they wished to share in the costs of taking down the proceedings. Counsel "failed to make any affirmative response" to these questions, and after trial the reporter refused to prepare a transcript for appellants.
The trial court concluded as a matter of law that the failure to respond to these questions amounted to an "express" refusal to participate in the costs, and that Harrington precluded appellants from compelling the reporter to prepare a transcript. We reverse.
The trial court's interpretation of the word "express" is too broad, since in this context we intend it to be understood in the sense of "(m)anifested by direct and appropriate language, as distinguished from that which is inferred from conduct." Black's Law Dictionary (4th Ed. 1968). The mere failure to respond to inquiries of the reporter does not amount to an " express" refusal.
Moreover, in order to invoke the Harrington rule a party must make the express refusal known to the judge before trial in order that he may exercise his supervisory role over the proceedings and the reporter. The official court reporter always acts as an officer of the court when taking notes of the proceedings, and in this capacity the reporter acts under the direction of the judge. Code Ann. §§ 24-3101, 3102. The duties of the reporter are set by law, not by private contract. No private agreement of the reporter and one party can prejudice the rights of the other party to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beringer v. Emory
...Id. (punctuation omitted). 5. Id. (punctuation omitted). 6. Id.; see Harrington v. Harrington, 224 Ga. 305, 305–06(2), 161 S.E.2d 862 (1968). 7.Giddings v. Starks, 240 Ga. 496, 496, 241 S.E.2d 208 (1978) (per curiam) 8.Id. at 497, 241 S.E.2d 208. 9.See Moore v. Ctr. Ct. Sports & Fitness, 28......
-
Kent v. Kent.
...“ ‘(m)anifested by direct and appropriate language, as distinguished from that which is inferred from conduct.’ ” Giddings v. Starks, 240 Ga. 496, 496, 241 S.E.2d 208 (1978) (emphasis added) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1968)). Thus, “mere failure to respond to inquiries of the ......
-
Ruffin v. Banks, A01A0513.
...S.E.2d 567 (1972). 4. Ga. American Ins. Co. v. Varnum, 182 Ga.App. 907, 908(1), 357 S.E.2d 609 (1987). 5. Compare Giddings v. Starks, 240 Ga. 496, 497, 241 S.E.2d 208 (1978) (silence is not an express 6. Id. (decision must be expressly made at beginning of trial so that right to transcript ......
-
Bmw Bank of North America v. Short
...refused to participate in reporting expenses and because the arbitrator never ruled on the question. See, e.g., Giddings v. Starks, 240 Ga. 496, 496-497, 241 S.E.2d 208 (1978). As we pointed out in Tow v. Reed, 180 Ga.App. 609, 349 S.E.2d 829 (1986), however, Giddings involved a pre-trial p......