Hydramotive Mfg. Corp. v. Securities and Exchange Com'n, 7977.

• Decision Date: 03 January 1966
• Docket Number: No. 7977.,7977.
• Parties: HYDRAMOTIVE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION et al., Appellants, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

355 F.2d 179 (1966)

HYDRAMOTIVE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION et al., Appellants, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Appellee.

No. 7977.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

January 3, 1966.

Robert E. Shelton and Monroe C. Francis, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellants.

John V. Holmes, Love Valley, N. C., appellant, pro se.

David B. Bliss, Atty., Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and BREITENSTEIN and SETH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The appellants have moved that the case be remanded to the District Court, and that a new trial be granted by reason of the failure of the former official court reporter to have fully transcribed the testimony.

It appears that the reporter has left the employment of the court and has not proceeded with the preparation of a transcript. Appellants' attorney stated during the hearing that he has made repeated attempts to have the reporter complete the work, but has been unsuccessful. It does not appear from the record that appellants have formally requested relief from the District Court.

The preparation of the transcript by the reporter is an administrative matter under the general supervision of the District Court from which this appeal arose. The statute relating to reporters, 28 U.S.C.A. § 753, provides for their appointment by each district court, and states their duties including the prompt transcription of the testimony. It provides also: "The reporters shall be subject to the supervision of the appointing court and the Judicial Conference in the performance of their duties, including dealings with parties requesting transcripts." The duty of supervising court reporters is one of routine administration in the District Courts, and is not dependent upon the court's jurisdiction in any particular case. Thus the fact that an appeal had been taken in the case before us, and the District Court had lost jurisdiction to proceed further as to its merits, does not mean it had lost its power to continue the supervision of the reporter's duties although they relate particularly to this case. The preparation of the transcript is a continuing matter which must proceed in the District Court although jurisdiction over the case in which it will be filed may have passed to the appellate court.

The Rules of Civil Procedure make provision for the approval by the District Court of the record in but a few specific instances. These include some records on forma pauperis, Rule 75(m), where there was no stenographic reporter present, Rule 75(n), and where the evidence is provided by an agreed statement, Rule 76. The District Court must also resolve errors in the record under Rule 75(h). Thus it is assumed that no specific action is required in the many other instances, and that the transcripts will be...