Pittsburgh Towing Company v. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Company/Dissent Black

by Hugo Black

United States Supreme Court

385 U.S. 32

Pittsburgh Towing Company  v.  Mississippi Valley Barge Line Company

Mr. Justice BLACK, dissenting.

Due to a misunderstanding among appellant's lawyers this case was not docketed nor was the record filed until 22 days after the 60-day period prescribed by this Court's Rule 13(1). The Court now, quite contrary to its recent practices, dismisses the case pursuant to Rule 14(2) because of this error of appellant's lawyers. Rule 14(2) permits, but does not require, such a harsh court order to be made. Appellant's counsel, upon reporting the misunderstanding to a member of this Court, could unquestionably have obtained an enlargement of the time to docket the case extending even beyond the 22 days within which the record was actually filed. There is no indication whatever that the appellees, their counsel or other parties with business before this Court have been injured-as the Court seems to intimate without record support-by this slight formalistic delinquency. On the contrary, the appellant is denied review of a judgment setting aside an Interstate Commerce Commission order, a type of three-judge district court judgment from which Congress has seen fit to give aggrieved persons a direct appeal to this Court. Thus, for a mere paper-filing negligence of appellant's counsel, the purpose of Congress to grant reviews of this special category of administrative orders is frustrated.

This case is now to take its place among a growing number of others where mere procedural rules have been used to prevent the consideration and determination of cases on their merits. See e.g., Lord v. Helmandollar, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 168, 348 F.2d 780, cert. denied, 383 U.S. 928, 86 S.Ct. 929, 15 L.Ed.2d 847, Black, J., dissenting; Riess v. Murchison, cert. denied, 383 U.S. 946, 86 S.Ct. 1196, 16 L.Ed.2d 209, Black J., dissenting; Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 636, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734, Black, J., joined by The Chief Justice, dissenting; Beaufort Concrete Co. v. Atlantic States Constr. Co., 384 U.S. 1004, 86 S.Ct. 1908, 16 L.Ed.2d 1018, Black, J., dissenting; Santana v. United States, 385 U.S. 848, 87 S.Ct. 74, Black, J., dissenting. I find it inconsistent with a fair system of justice to throw out a litigant's case because his lawyer, due to negligence, or misunderstanding, or some other reason fails to satisfy one of many procedural time limits. If a pound of flesh is required because of negligence of a lawyer, why not impose the penalty on him and not his innocent client?

As I have previously stated, 'The filing of court papers on time is, of course, important in our court system. But lawsuits are not conducted to reward the litigant whose lawyer is most diligent or to punish the litigant whose lawyer is careless. Procedural paper requirements should never stand as a series of dangerous hazards to the achievement of justice through a fair trial on the merits.' Beaufort Concrete Co., supra, 384 U.S. at 1006, 86 S.Ct. at 1910, Black, J., dissenting. The conflict between the interest of the court clerk in the timely filing of papers and the interest of the citizen in having his lawsuit tried should be resolved in favor of the citizen, not the court clerk. I would not dismiss this case for violation of Rule 13(1).

Notes