Case Name: PITTSBURGH TOWING CO. v. MISSISSIPPI VALLEY BARGE LINE CO. et al.
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1966-11-07
Citations: 385 U.S. 32
Docket Number: No. 319
Parties: PITTSBURGH TOWING CO. v. MISSISSIPPI VALLEY BARGE LINE CO. et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 385
Pages: 32–34

Head Matter:
PITTSBURGH TOWING CO. v. MISSISSIPPI VALLEY BARGE LINE CO. et al.
No. 319.
Decided November 7, 1966.
Ernie Adamson for appellant.
Arthur L. Winn, Jr., Samuel H. Moerman, J. Raymond Clark and James M. Henderson for appellees.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The motion to dismiss is granted for failure of appellant to comply with the time requirement of Rule 13 (1) of the Rules of this Court in docketing its appeal. This appeal was docketed 22 days after expiration of the 60-day period provided by the Rule. During that period, appellant made no application for an enlargement of time, either to the District Court or to a Justice of this Court (see Rule 13 (1)), nor did any explanation accompany the untimely docketing of the appeal. The jurisdictional statement itself is silent on the subject. Not until appellee moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 14 (2) did appellant comment upon its default. Its reply to the Motion to Dismiss states that the "delay was occasioned by a misunderstanding between Counsel for appellant." It does not elaborate.
This Court has been generous in excusing errors of counsel, but if there are to be rules, there must be some limit to our willingness to overlook their violation. While we are inclined to be generous in exercising our discretion to forgive a mistake and waive the consequences of negligence, fairness to other counsel and to parties with business before the Court as well as due regard for our own procedures leads us to believe that this case does not warrant our indulgence.