Court Opinion

ID: 9681071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:43:33.705131+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:32.069355
License: Public Domain

GREENHILL, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent because of the dismissal of the appeal.
In my opinion, for the reasons hereinafter set out, the appeal should not have been dismissed. I would affirm the judgments of the courts below. Under the broad holdings of the Supreme Court of the United States in F.E.L.A. cases, the jury issues with regard to the railroad’s failure to furnish suitable equipment to the plaintiff, answered by the jury favorably to the plaintiff, will support the judgment for the plaintiff. Moreover, in view of that Court’s approach to F.E.L.A. cases, I would not reverse on the argument of plaintiff’s counsel to the jury.
I cannot agree that the appeal was lost for failure to file the record in time. As this Court’s opinion shows, the trial judge wanted additional time to study the motion for new trial. Counsel for both parties were prepared and ready, but the judge needed additional time. Counsel for both parties wanted to oblige the court, and so stated in open court. Both were willing for the time to be extended for the benefit of the trial judge. Whereupon, counsel for defendant, in open court, while the matter was being considered, stated:
“Let the record show that pursuant to agreement of both sides, the Court has extended the time for determination of the motion which was presented this morning to and including Saturday, September the 30th 1961.”
The agreement was reduced to writing by the Court reporter and appears in the record. It is shocking to me that this gentlemen’s agreement, made in open court, at the request and order of the court, should not be binding. I would construe Rule 11 with Rule 329b and would hold that the record was filed in time.