Title: Board of Commissioners of the City of Montgomery v. Crenshaw

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

120 So. 2d 870 (1960)
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY et al.
v.
Files CRENSHAW et al.
3 Div. 895.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
May 26, 1960.
Walter J. Knabe and Rodney R. Steele, Montgomery, for appellants.
John C. Godbold, Godbold, Hobbs & Copeland, Montgomery, for appellees.
GOODWYN, Justice.
Appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal for failure of appellants to serve them with a copy of their brief within the time prescribed by the rules of this court. It is thus stated in the motion to dismiss:
Appellants do not deny that the date of mailing their brief to counsel for appellees was after January 19, 1960, as recited in their certificate of service. In their answer to the motion to dismiss, appellants state that their brief was mailed on January 21, 1960. However, this was also after the time allowed for filing their brief. (In this connection, it should be noted that January 19, 1960, Robert E. Lee's Birthday, was a legal holiday in Alabama. Code 1940, Title 39, § 184, as amended. Accordingly, under the provisions of Supreme Court Rule 46, as amended, Code 1940, Tit. 7 Appendix, appellants had until January 20, 1960, to file their brief.)
The position taken by appellants is that appellees have not been prejudiced by the failure to timely serve the brief, and that "the hypertechnical aspect of this motion runs contrary to the very scheme of appellate procedure and the sense of this Court's rules."
The question presented is whether Rule 11 requires the service of a brief on opposing counsel within the time prescribed for filing the brief. While the rule does not say so in those words, the requirement in that respect seems obvious. A brief which is timely filed necessarily must contain a certificate that service of the brief has already been made. Clearly implicit in this is the requirement that service of the brief be made within the time allowed for filing the brief. Such is the effect of our holdings in the following cases: Bozeman v. State, 269 Ala. 610, 114 So. 2d 914; Adkins v. State, 268 Ala. 548, 109 So. 2d 749; Golden v. State, 267 Ala. 456, 103 So. 2d 62; Gambrell v. Bridges, 266 Ala. 302, 96 So. 2d 182; Bruner v. State, 265 Ala. 357, 91 So. 2d 224. See, also, Thorpe v. State, Ala., 119 So. 2d 222. Cf. Tipton v. Tipton, 267 Ala. 64, 100 So. 2d 14, where it was held that the filing of a brief by appellant within the time prescribed by Rule 12 of the Revised Rules of the Supreme Court is mandatory.
We have no alternative but to grant the motion.
Appeal dismissed.
LAWSON, STAKELY, MERRILL and COLEMAN, JJ., concur.