Court Opinion

ID: 9768787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 13:49:11.755949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:45.282341
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Reheáring.
 PER CURIAM: — Plaintiff’s motion for rehearing, supported by.affidavits, states that plaintiff’s attorneys intended'to and believed in good faith that they-had enclosed a check for-the Supreme Court docket fee with the notice of appeal which'they .sent ;by mail, td .the Circuit Clerk of Ozark County and which was received by him on July 11, 1949. They also say that no actual delay of the appeal was caused and that defendant’s attorneys should be estopped because of permitting the transcript to be made, and briefs filed, at plaintiff’s cost.
*858We are convinced that plaintiff’s attorneys acted in good faith and we did not intend to convey any other impression in onr discussion of the reasons for adopting Sec. 129 of the Code and Rule 3.28. However, the Code (Sec. 130) provides a remedy for such a situation and many others in which failure to file a notice of appeal within the time required by Sec. 129, was not due to culpable negligence. This is the only remedy for failure to file a notice of appeal, not later than 10 days after the judgment appealed from becomes final, because Sec. 6 of the Code says Courts “may not enlarge the period for * * * taking an appeal as provided by this Code.” Therefore, the only remedy for failure to comply with Sec. 129 is that provided in Sec. 130 for appeal by special order. We have been liberal in applying Sec. 130, upon a showing that there is merit in any point an appellant wishes to present on appeal and have frequently granted such relief where failure to comply with Sec. 129 was due to inadvertence or oversight. However, after the six months period has passed there is no other remedy and no method of taking an appeal available in a civil case.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
All concur.