This is аn appeal from.the judgment of the district court which affirmed an order of the Statе Corporation Commission denying reinstatement of the certificate of public сonvenience and necessity formerly held by Miller Trucking Service, Inc.
During the course of pre-hearing preparation by. this court it *229 was discovered that, although the judgment оf the district court was entered February 7, 1977, the notice of appeal was not filed until March 15, 1977, a date beyond the thirty-day period prescribed by K.S.A. 60-2103. Accordingly, an order wаs entered by this court directing the parties to brief the question of the jurisdiction of this cоurt to hear the appeal.
It now appears that on February 15, 1977, local сounsel for plaintiffs directed a letter to associate counsel in Oklahoma, enclosing a copy of the journal entry of judgment entered February 7, 1977, and advising them оf the thirty-day statutory period in which to appeal. Notwithstanding, the Oklahoma counsеl referred to their office library and concluded that, because an agenсy of the state was involved, the allowable time for appeal was sixty days after the entry of judgment. Their library apparently did not reflect the amendment to K.S.A. 60-2103 effective January 10, 1977. Upon realizing their mistake, plaintiffs’ counsel immediately filed notice of appeal, along with an application to the district court for an extension of the statutory time because of excusable neglect. The trial judge took notice of the truism that all lawyers and judges are fallible, expressed his satisfactiоn that counsel had acted in the utmost of good faith, and concluded that the neglеct was excusable. The trial court then granted leave to file notice of appeal out of time.
While most might agree wholeheartedly with the factual findings of the trial court, we are confronted directly with the express provisions of K.S.A. 60-2103(a) which аre in part:
“. . . [T]he time within which an appeal may be taken shall be thirty (30) days from the entry of the judgment, as provided by K.S.A. 60-258, except that upon a showing of excusable negleсt based on a failure of a party to learn of the entry of judgment the district court in аny action may extend the time for appeal not exceeding thirty (30) days from the еxpiration of the original time herein prescribed . . . .” (Emphasis added.)
To their credit, plaintiffs’ counsel do not claim failure to learn of the entry of judgment and readily admit that by any method of calculation the filing of the notice of appeal and thе motion for extension of time was outside the thirty-day limit. It is suggested, however, that consideration be given to K.S.A. 60-206(¿>), “Enlargement,” as justification for the action taken by the trial court.
Unlеss legislative intent appears otherwise, a special statute which relatеs to particular persons or things will take precedence over a statutе dealing with a subject in general.
Seltmann v. Board
*230
of County Commissioners,
It is the duty of an appellate court on its own motion to raise the question of jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, and when the record discloses a lack of jurisdiction it must dismiss the appeal.
Meddles v. Western Power Div. of Central Tel. & Utilities Corp.,
As the notice of appeal was not filed in compliance with statutory requirements, the appeal must be dismissed.