Court Opinion

ID: 9581803
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:18:56.313764+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:15.658494
License: Public Domain

Eberhardt, Judge,
concurring specially as to Division 1.
I cannot agree with the proposition that because appellant did not receive from the clerk of this court notice of docketing of the case he was free to sit idly by and do nothing. “The miscarriage of the mail, in the transmission of papers to the clerk, is no ground for continuing a case, unless shown to be from Providential cause.” Shackleford v. Hays, 3 Ga. 415. Accord, Osborn v. Hale, 70 Ga. 731. “The ordinary delays of the mails do not constitute providential cause.” Griffith v. Mitchell, 117 Ga. 476 (43 SE 742). We do have a rule calling for the sending out of the notice, but that is a matter of courtesy to counsel, and to make it clear we have amended the rule spelling that out. Counsel knew that the clerk of the trial *616court had sent the record up. If he had any doubt that it had been received and docketed within the usual time for mail to carry it from the trial court to the clerk of this court he could have made inquiry of our clerk. Indeed, after some two months he did so. It is the duty of counsel to keep up with the progress of his client’s case at every stage from the time it is filed until it is finally disposed of in order that he may faithfully, honestly and consistently represent the interests and protect the rights of his client. This duty extends not only to the client but to the courts as well. Rule 3-121, Rules and Regulations for Organization and Government of the State Bar of Georgia. “Diligence, both of counsel and parties litigant, is necessary if courts are to function in an orderly and proper manner. Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subvemunt.” Dowis v. McCurdy, 109 Ga. App. 488, 490 (136 SE2d 389).
It was and is my view that this court could, for providential reasons, extend the time of filing the enumeration of errors under § 6 of the Act (Code Ann. § 6-804). “Providential cause has been recognized as a ground for reinstating a case after it has been dismissed, but no other ground has been so recognized.” Griffith v. Mitchell, 117 Ga. 476, 478, supra. But no providential reason appeared in connection with the request made on December 15 (see Griffith v. Mitchell, supra, at p. 479), and the order which we entered December 20, 1965, was improvidently granted and should have been vacated.
However, I find myself in agreement that the amending Act of 1966 applies to any case then pending, whether in the trial or the appellate court. City of Valdosta v. Singleton, 197 Ga. 194, 208 (28 SE2d 759); Fulton County v. Spratlin, 210 Ga. 447 (2) (80 SE2d 780). Consequently, there should now be no dismissal on the ground that the enumeration of errors was not timely filed.
I concur in Divisions 2 and 3 of the majority opinion.