Court Opinion

ID: 9658522
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:03:36.967833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:56.215237
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing
COLEMAN, Justice.
Appellants make known to us that their brief was mailed on the 28th day after the filing of the transcript in this case. With reference to a petition for certiorari, we have held that posting or mailing is not the equivalent of filing. The reasons given for that holding with respect to filing a petition for certiorari apply with equal force to filing a brief.
In a recent case we have said:
“As stated in In re State ex rel. Attorney General, 185 Ala. 347, 349, 64 So. 310, 311, ‘Manifestly the posting of [a petition], properly addressed, is not a compliance with the rule. It must be filed within the period stipulated. The mail must and could only be the agent or agency of the party applying [for the certiorari]. If there be delay in the transmission of the application by the mail, however free from fault or negligence the applicant may have been, it cannot be said that he had complied with this * * * rule. In mailing or otherwise transmitting the application, the chance of miscarriage or delay is a contingency, the happening of which the applicant must assume. * * * [It] cannot be affirmed that seasonable, proper posting answers the prescription of the rule.’ ” Morrow v. State, 266 Ala. 452, 97 So.2d 547, 548.
Opinion extended. Application for rehearing overruled.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON, SIMPSON, GOODWYN and MERRILL, JJ., concur.