This so-called notice was marked "Filed" by the Circuit Clerk on April 23, 1972. In Ruiz v. Ruiz, 233 Miss. 192, 101 So.2d 533 (1958), this Court said: "On September 23, 1957, the transcript of the stenographic notes taken in the trial court was stricken from the record on motion of the appellee Sally Bradford Ruiz on account of the failure of the appellant to give the notice to the court reporter to transcribe the stenographic notes of the testimony, as required by Section 1640, Code of 1942, and the transcript of the testimony is therefore no part of the record now before us.

J. Gordon Roach, McComb, for appellee. I. Where stenographic notes have been stricken from the record the appellate court must consider the cause solely upon the record of the pleadings and judgment of the lower court. American Creosote Works, Inc. v. Rose Brothers, 211 Miss. 173, 51 So.2d 220; Ashe v. Ballard, 223 Miss. 397, 78 So.2d 476; Ivy v. Robertson, 220 Miss. 364, 70 So.2d 862; Mississippi State Highway Dept. v. Meador, 184 Miss. 381, 185 So. 816, 186 So. 642; Ruiz v. Ruiz, 233 Miss. 192, 101 So.2d 533; Shaw v. Bula Cannon Shops, 205 Miss. 458, 38 So.2d 916; Wilson v. Wilson, 103 Miss. 585, 60 So. 652. II. Chancellor's decree upon conflicting evidence conclusive on appeal unless manifestly wrong.

Miss.R.Civ.P. Rule 17(c): "If an infant or incompetent person does not have a duly appointed representative, he may sue by his next friend." See also, Miss. Code Ann. § 11-53-45 (1972); Ruiz v. Ruiz, 233 Miss. 192, 101 So.2d 533 (1958); Prudential Ins. Co. v. Gleason, 185 Miss. 243, 187 So. 229 (1939). Indeed, to remove disabilities of minority, the statutes require that the petition be brought by an adult next friend, Miss. Code Ann. §§ 93-19-3 — 5 (1972).

Ashe v. Ballard, 223 Miss. 397, 78 So.2d 476 (1955); Rees v. Rees, 188 Miss. 256, 193 So. 334, 194 So. 750 (1940); McGee v. State, 203 Miss. 609, 35 So.2d 628 (1948); Drew v. Caston, 162 Miss. 851, 132 So. 736 (1931); Mayflower Mills v. Breeland, 168 Miss. 207, 149 So. 787 (1933); Dunn v. Green, 124 Miss. 602, 86 So. 852 (1920); Brown v. Thomas, 230 Miss. 308, 92 So.2d 878 (1957); Leonard v. Sullivan, 248 Miss. 442, 154 So.2d 109, 160 So.2d 213 (1964); In re Simpson, 199 So.2d 833 (Miss. 1967); Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Brown, 250 Miss. 773, 162 So.2d 508 (1964); Bryant v. Associates Discount Corporation, 251 Miss. 1, 167 So.2d 657 (1964); Ruiz v. Ruiz, 233 Miss. 192, 101 So.2d 533 (1958); Tullos v. Board of Supervisors of Simpson County, 124 Miss. 121, 86 So. 358 (1920). The chancellor's opinion clearly shows that the court reporter's notes were transcribed by the court reporter for the use of the chancellor and that the parties agreed to divide the cost.

We have repeatedly held that the giving of notice to the court reporter to transcribe the stenographic notes within the specified period of ten days is jurisdictional and unless this requirement is complied with the transcript will not be considered on appeal to this Court. See authorities cited by this Court in the case of Ruiz v. Ruiz, 233 Miss. 192, 101 So.2d 533. The court reporter's stenographic notes in this case will, therefore, be stricken from the files and returned to the Clerk of this Court, and will not be considered on a hearing of this case on appeal. But the motion to dismiss the appeal will be overruled.

Under these circumstances, appellant filed a petition asking a writ of mandamus to compel the court reporter to transcribe and send up on appeal his notes of the testimony. It is contended that the failure to give notice in time was not the fault of appellant, and this Court should in fairness grant the relief. (Hn 1) However, it has long since been settled that the giving of the notice to the court reporter is jurisdictional. If such notice is not given within the 10 day period, the reporter's transcript cannot be considered on appeal. Ruiz v. Ruiz, 101 So.2d 533 (Miss. 1958). (Hn 2) Certiorari does not lie to bring up a transcript under a void notice.

The emancipation of an infant may relieve him of his obligation to his parents and may have other results but does not remove all the disabilities of infancy. 43 C.J.S. 90, § 28. While some jurisdictions have held that marriage of an infant resulting in an emancipation permits him to sue or defend in his own name in a divorce proceeding, the better and more recent decisions hold that such exception to the general rule ought not to be made except through legislative act. Note, 17 A.L.R. 900, 901; Cohn v. Cohn, 310 Mass. 126, 128; Ruiz v. Ruiz, 233 Miss. 192, 196; Randall v. Randall, 12 Misc.2d 468, 470. Even if there were no necessity for the plaintiff's institution of suit by his next best friend, no harm can result therefrom, as the jurisdiction of the court is not affected thereby.