similar logic, holding that delay between a document’s arrivi . 234, 237 (D.N.J.1961) (“I find that the original complaint in this action was in the Post Office box assigned to the Clerk of this Court in the United States Post Office in the City of Newark on Saturday, April 22, 1961, and that therefore the action was commenced within the time required.”); Johnson v. Esso Standard Oil Co., 181 F.Supp. 431, 433-34 (D.Pa.1960) (“I think that the delivery of this complaint to the Clerk in his post office box on Monday, November 24, 1958, constituted a filing of the complaint and commencement of the plaintiffs’ action on that day, which was prior to the expiration of the two-year period prescribed by the statute of limitations.”); Johansson v. Towson, 177 F.Supp. 729, 731 (M.D.Ga. 1959) (<HOLDING>). Under this rule, we would consider Ross’s
holding that utility customers mailing of a petition did not constitute the filing of the petition as filing was not effectuated until the petition was received by the clerk holding jurys finding that money in bank safe deposit box was contraband was not supported by factually sufficient evidence when safety deposit box was located a distance away from marijuana despite fact that canine alerted to safety deposit box holding that the filing of a motion to dismiss the case by the clerk of court did not interrupt the running of the threeyear prescriptive period for abandonment because the action was taken by the clerk of court a nonparty holding that the clerk who refused to accept filing of complaint at the direction of the judge was entitled to quasijudicial immunity holding that the receipt by the deputy clerk of  complaints in his post office box in the early morning hours of saturday august 23 constituted a sufficient filing of these suits prior to midnight of the following day notwithstanding the fact that the clerk did not open the box until 830 am on monday august 25