Bailey v. Bank of Dover

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Bailey v. Bank of Dover

209 S.W.2d 864, 213 Ark. 261, 1948 Ark. LEXIS 385

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedApril 12, 1948

Docket4-8476

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 209 S.W.2d 864 (Bailey v. Bank of Dover) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bailey v. Bank of Dover, 209 S.W.2d 864, 213 Ark. 261, 1948 Ark. LEXIS 385 (Ark. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellee has moved for affirmance of the judgment appealed from on the ground that appellant has failed to comply with Buie 9 of this court. This rule requires that in each case the appellant make an abstract of material portions of the “pleadings-, proceedings, facts and documents upon which appellant relies, . . . ”

In the case at bar no abstract was made of the complaint, it being thus referred to in appellant’s brief: ‘ ‘ Complaint was filed in this case, wherein, the usual allegations were made on February 20, 1946.” Only this reference to the answer is made: “Answer was filed by the Bank of Dover on November 7,1946.” The lower court made findings of fact and of law. These findings are not abstracted. No abstract of contents of motion for new trial is made. Manifestly such an abstract does not comply with our rule. See Droke v. Rogers, 210 Ark. 938, 198 S. W. 2d 180; Golden v. Wallace, 212 Ark. 732, 207 S. W. 2d 605, and cases therein cited.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

The Chief Justice dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Appellee has moved for affirmance of the judgment appealed from on the ground that appellant has failed to comply with Buie 9 of this court. This rule requires that in each case the appellant make an abstract of material portions of the “pleadings-, proceedings, facts and documents upon which appellant relies, . . . ”

In the case at bar no abstract was made of the complaint, it being thus referred to in appellant’s brief: ‘ ‘ Complaint was filed in this case, wherein, the usual allegations were made on February 20, 1946.” Only this reference to the answer is made: “Answer was filed by the Bank of Dover on November 7,1946.” The lower court made findings of fact and of law. These findings are not abstracted. No abstract of contents of motion for new trial is made. Manifestly such an abstract does not comply with our rule. See Droke v. Rogers, 210 Ark. 938, 198 S. W. 2d 180; Golden v. Wallace, 212 Ark. 732, 207 S. W. 2d 605, and cases therein cited.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

The Chief Justice dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 S.W.2d 864, 213 Ark. 261, 1948 Ark. LEXIS 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-bank-of-dover-ark-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack