Toledo, St. Louis & Kansas City Railroad v. Continental Trust Co.
Headline: Court denies petitions for review but allows clerk-prepared printed court records to serve as certified copies, reducing extra manuscript costs and clarifying clerks’ duties when printing and distributing records.
Holding:
- Allows clerk-prepared printed records to be treated as certified copies when supervised and paid for.
- Reduces need for costly separate manuscript reproductions of the record.
- Clarifies clerks’ responsibilities when preparing and distributing printed records.
Summary
Background
A group of parties asked the Court to review appeals decided by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Judicial Circuit and sought permission to use already printed transcripts instead of new manuscript certification. The clerk of the Circuit Court had certified the original record and the appeals-court clerk had prepared, indexed, supervised, and distributed printed copies, but refused to deduct costs or issue a separate certification for those printed copies. Petitioners asked the Supreme Court to accept the printed copies without paying for a fresh manuscript reproduction.
Reasoning
The key question was whether printed copies that an appeals-court clerk prepared and supervised could satisfy the Court’s rule requiring a certified copy of the entire record for review applications. The Court noted its rule and the established fee schedule that authorizes clerks to charge for preparing records for the printer, indexing, supervising printing, and distributing copies. Because the appeals-court clerk had performed those tasks, supervised the printing, and been paid, and because the printed copies were shown to be accurate, the Court treated the supplied printed copies as if they had been duly certified. The Court nevertheless denied the parties’ requests for review.
Real world impact
This decision makes it clear that when an appeals-court clerk prepares, indexes, supervises, and is paid for printed records, those printed copies can satisfy the Supreme Court’s certification requirement for review applications. That can spare litigants from paying for a separate manuscript reproduction. At the same time, the denial of review means the Supreme Court did not agree to hear the underlying appeals in these cases.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?