Document: 385 U.S. 32 87 S.Ct. 195 17 L.Ed.2d 31 PITTSBURGH TOWING COMPANYv.MISSISSIPPI VALLEY BARGE LINE COMPANY et al. No. 319. Nov. 7, 1966. Rehearing Denied Dec. 12, See 995, 594. Ernie Adamson, for appellant. Arthur L. Winn, Jr., Samuel H. Moerman, J. Raymond Clark and James M. Henderson, appellees. PER CURIAM. 1 The motion to dismiss is granted failure of appellant comply with the time requirement Rule 13(1) Rules this Court in docketing its appeal. This appeal was docketed 22 days after expiration 60-day period provided by Rule. During that period, made no application an enlargement time, either District or a Justice (see 13(1)), nor did any explanation accompany untimely jurisdictional statement itself silent on subject. Not until appellee moved pursuant 14(2) comment upon default. Its reply Motion Dismiss states 'delay occasioned misunderstanding between Counsel appellant.' It does not elaborate. 2 has been generous excusing errors counsel, but if there are be rules, must some limit our willingness overlook their violation. While we inclined exercising discretion forgive mistake waive consequences negligence, fairness other counsel parties business before as well due regard own procedures leads us believe case warrant indulgence. 3 Mr. BLACK, dissenting. 4 Due among appellant's lawyers record filed prescribed Court's 13(1). now, quite contrary recent practices, dismisses because error lawyers. permits, require, such harsh court order made. Appellant's reporting member Court, could unquestionably have obtained docket extending even beyond within which actually filed. There indication whatever appellees, injured—as seems intimate without support—by slight formalistic delinquency. On contrary, denied review judgment setting aside Interstate Commerce Commission order, type three-judge district from Congress seen fit give aggrieved persons direct Court. Thus, mere paper-filing negligence purpose grant reviews special category administrative orders frustrated. 5 now take place growing number others where procedural rules used prevent consideration determination cases merits. e.g., Lord v. Helmandollar, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 168, 348 F.2d 780, cert. denied, 383 928, 86 929, 15 847, Black, J., dissenting; Riess Murchison, 946, 1196, 16 209, Black Link Wabash R. Co., 370 626, 636, 82 1386, 8 734, joined Chief Justice, Beaufort Concrete Co. Atlantic States Constr. 384 1004, 1908, 1018, Santana United States, 848, 74, I find it inconsistent fair system justice throw out litigant's his lawyer, misunderstanding, reason fails satisfy one many limits. If pound flesh required why impose penalty him innocent client? 6 As previously stated, 'The filing papers is, course, important system. But lawsuits conducted reward litigant whose lawyer most diligent punish careless. Procedural paper requirements should never stand series dangerous hazards achievement through trial merits.' supra, at 1006, 1910, conflict interest clerk timely citizen having lawsuit tried resolved favor citizen, clerk. would violation

Category: 8