Case Name: DOYNE v. WERNER
Court: Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1918-12-12
Citations: 48 App. D.C. 254
Docket Number: No. 1229
Parties: DOYNE v. WERNER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of Cases Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia
Volume: 48
Pages: 254–256

Head Matter:
DOYNE v. WERNER.
Patents; Attorneys; Rules of Court.
1. An attorney of wide experience is not justified in believing that the rules of a lower court or tribunal govern in this court.
2. If counsel for a party to an appeal in this court finds he cannot get his brief printed so as to have it filed in time, he should-apply at once to the court for an enlargement of the time.
3. The rules of this court are made to be obeyed, and he who disregards them does so at his peril. (Following Re Eitehcoch, 47 App. D. C. 251.)
No. 1229.
Patent Appeals.
Dismissed October 31, 1918.
Motion to reinstate submitted December 11, 1918.
Motion overruled December 12, 1918.
Hearing on a motion to set aside an order of dismissal for failure of appellant to file brief within the time prescribed by ' an order extending tbe time for that purpose.
Motion overruled.
Tbe Court in tbe opinion stated tbe facts as follows:
Tbis is a motion to set aside an order of dismissal entered by tbis court because of tbe failure of tbe appellants, Simon Doyne and Samuel Naval, to file their-brief witbin tbe time prescribed by an order extending tbe time for that purpose.
Counsel for appellants presents bis affidavit in support of tbe motion. In it be states that be has an office in tbe city of New York; that be has been admitted to practice in state and Federal courts of many jurisdictions, as well as in tbe Patent Office; that be concluded that tbe same rules would apply in tbis court as apply in connection with tbe filing of briefs in the Patent Office; that on October 10 be was informed that appellants’ brief was due on that day, but at tbe request of local counsel representing the affiant the time had been extended by the court for fifteen days; that owing to sickness he was not able to complete the writing of the brief until October 23; that on this date he learned that none of many printing houses in New York to which he had made application would be able to print the brief in time for delivery at the office of the clerk of this court on the 25th; that he then placed his order for the printing of the brief, and that the work thereon was finished on the 30th of October, on which date, he asserts, he forwarded the necessary number of copies to the clerk of this court.
The briefs have not yet been received by the clerk. No letter informing the clerk that they had been forwarded was sent, nor was any inquiry made of him as to whether or not the briefs had arrived at his office. On October 31, the case was dismissed under the rules, and notice given at once to appellants’ counsel. To this no response was made by him until December 11, when he filed the motion and affidavit we are now considering.
Mr. J. B. Bowersock and Mr. E. T. Brandenburg for the motion.
Mr. Olios. E. Riordan opposed.

Opinion:
Mr. Chief Justice Smyth
delivered the opinion of the Court:
The showing in support of the motion discloses no diligence and is otherwise entirely insufficient. An attorney of wide experience is not justified in believing that the rules of a lower court or tribunal govern in the appellate court. When counsel discovered that he could not get the briefs printed so as to have them filed within the period allowed by the order of extension, he should have applied at once to this court for an enlargement of the time. lie did not do so, but ignored the order and the rules of the court. No steps whatever .were taken by him to ascertain whether or not the briefs had reached their destination. When he was notified by the clerk that the case had been dismissed lie took no action, but waited about forty days, and then filed this motion. We have said that the rules of this court are made to be obeyed, and he who disregards them does so at his peril. Re Hitchcock, 47 App. D. C. 251.
The motion is overruled. Overruled.
A motion to reconsider the motion to reinstate the appeal was denied December 28, 1918.