Carr v. Maryland Casualty Company

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Carr v. Maryland Casualty Company

39 S.W.2d 299, 183 Ark. 856, 1931 Ark. LEXIS 49

DecidedJune 1, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 39 S.W.2d 299 (Carr v. Maryland Casualty Company) 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

Carr v. Maryland Casualty Company, 39 S.W.2d 299, 183 Ark. 856, 1931 Ark. LEXIS 49 (Ark. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Humphreys, J.

This is an appeal from a purported decree rendered in the chancery court of Desha County dismissing appellant’s complaint for the want of equity. Under rule 9 of this court adopted in aid of the dispatch of business, an appellant is required to file an abridgment of the transcript, setting forth the material parts of the pleadings, proceedings, facts, and documents upon which he relies, together with such other statements from the record as are necessary to a full understanding of all questions presented to this court for decision. The abstract should contain full reference to the pages of the transcript. No effort has been made by appellant to comply with this rule; so, in order to understand the questions presented by the apueal, it would be necessary to explore the transcript. This court has consistently refused to explore transcripts to determine issues involved on appeals because to do so would greatly retard the dispatch of business. Rule 9 is of long standing, reasonable, and wholesome, and, for that reason, has been, rigidly enforced by this court. Grimes v. McKee, 162 Ark. 197, 258 S. W. 134. Should we depart from the rule, it would result in a congested condition of the docket in a very short time. The motion to affirm the decree for failure to comply with rule 9 must therefore be sustained.

Decree affirmed.

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

Humphreys, J.

This is an appeal from a purported decree rendered in the chancery court of Desha County dismissing appellant’s complaint for the want of equity. Under rule 9 of this court adopted in aid of the dispatch of business, an appellant is required to file an abridgment of the transcript, setting forth the material parts of the pleadings, proceedings, facts, and documents upon which he relies, together with such other statements from the record as are necessary to a full understanding of all questions presented to this court for decision. The abstract should contain full reference to the pages of the transcript. No effort has been made by appellant to comply with this rule; so, in order to understand the questions presented by the apueal, it would be necessary to explore the transcript. This court has consistently refused to explore transcripts to determine issues involved on appeals because to do so would greatly retard the dispatch of business. Rule 9 is of long standing, reasonable, and wholesome, and, for that reason, has been, rigidly enforced by this court. Grimes v. McKee, 162 Ark. 197, 258 S. W. 134. Should we depart from the rule, it would result in a congested condition of the docket in a very short time. The motion to affirm the decree for failure to comply with rule 9 must therefore be sustained.

Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 S.W.2d 299, 183 Ark. 856, 1931 Ark. LEXIS 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carr-v-maryland-casualty-company-ark-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack