Board of Com'rs of City of Montgomery v. Crenshaw
Decision Date | 26 May 1960 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 895 |
Parties | BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY et al. v. Files CRENSHAW et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Walter J. Knabe and Rodney R. Steele, Montgomery, for appellants.
John C. Godbold, Godbold, Hobbs & Copeland, Montgomery, for appellees.
Appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal for failure of appellants to serve them with a copy of their brief within the time prescribed by the rules of this court. It is thus stated in the motion to dismiss:
'The time for filing brief of appellants, as extended by order of the Court entered on, to wit, the 31st day of December, 1959, expired on January 19, 1960.
Appellants do not deny that the date of mailing their brief to counsel for appellees was after January 19, 1960, as recited in their certificate of service. In their answer to the motion to dismiss, appellants state that their brief was mailed on January 21, 1960. However, this was also after the time allowed for filing their brief.
The position taken by appellants is that appellees have not been prejudiced by the failure to timely serve the brief, and that 'the hypertechnical aspect of this motion runs contrary to the very scheme of appellate procedure and the sense of this Court's rules.'
Rules 11 and 44 provide as follows:
Rule 11: 'Each brief shall be signed by the party filing the same or his attorney and shall contain a certificate at the end thereof, signed by the party or his attorney, that a copy thereof has been delivered or mailed to one of the attorneys for the opposing party, if represented by counsel, or to the opposing party if not so represented and his address is known; and the certificate shall show the date of such delivery or mailing and the person to whom delivered or mailed.'
Rule 44: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
M.B. v. R.P.
...Dexter Serv. Co. v. Thames Lumber Mfg. Co., 281 Ala. at 452, 204 So.2d at 147-48 (quoting Board of Comm'rs of Montgomery v. Crenshaw, 270 Ala. 598, 599-600, 120 So.2d 870, 871 (1960)). Since the decisions in Skelton and Dexter Service Co. were issued, the Rules of Appellate Procedure have b......
-
Brooks v. Everett, 7 Div. 504
...of appellant's brief within the time for the filing of that brief in this court. Our recent case of Board of Commissioners of City of Montgomery v. Crenshaw, 270 Ala. 598, 120 So.2d 870, is not apposite. In that case a copy of appellant's brief did not reach appellee's counsel until after t......
-
McCary v. Robinson
...shall show the date of such delivery or mailing and the person to whom delivered or mailed.' In Board of Commissioners of City of Montgomery v. Crenshaw et al., 270 Ala. 598, 120 So.2d 870, we dismissed the appeal because a copy of the appellant's brief was not served on any of the opposing......
-
Domit Const. Co. v. Town of Mountain Woods
...Ala. 199, 200, 145 So.2d 721; Page v. State ex rel. Wright, 273 Ala. 227, 228, 137 So.2d 740; Board of Commissioners of City of Montgomery v. Crenshaw, 270 Ala. 598, 599--600, 120 So.2d 870; Black v. State ex rel. Johnson, 269 Ala. 269, 112 So.2d 792; Waterall v. Waterall, 268 Ala. 594, 109......