Droke v. Rogers

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Droke v. Rogers

198 S.W.2d 180, 210 Ark. 938, 1946 Ark. LEXIS 543

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedDecember 16, 1946

Docket4-8026

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 198 S.W.2d 180 (Droke v. Rogers) 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

Droke v. Rogers, 198 S.W.2d 180, 210 Ark. 938, 1946 Ark. LEXIS 543 (Ark. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

McHaN'by, Justice.

Appellant says: ‘ ‘ This is • an action to recover broker’s commissions alleged by appel-lee to have been earned on the sale of property of the appellant. We believe the record in this case shows the following to be the evidence given in the case.” He then sets out quite briefly what he says is the effect of the evidence. The pleadings have not been abstracted. The instructions are not set out or abstracted. The verdict and judgment are not set out. The motion for a new trial, if any, and the action of the court thereon, if it did act, are not mentioned in appellant’s abstract and brief.

So, at the outset, appellant is met by appellee’s motion to affirm the judgment for noncompliance with Rule IX, which motion must be and is sustained on the authority of numerous cases. See Siloam Springs v. Broyles, 87 Ark. 202, 112 S. W. 219, and the many cases there cited; Queen of Ark. Ins. Co. v. Royal, 102 Ark. 95, 143 S. W. 596; Winn v. Schneider, 207 Ark. 605, 182 S. W. 2d 216.

Appellee has not supplied the deficiencies in appellant ’s abstract, and the judgment is affirmed.

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

McHaN'by, Justice.

Appellant says: ‘ ‘ This is • an action to recover broker’s commissions alleged by appel-lee to have been earned on the sale of property of the appellant. We believe the record in this case shows the following to be the evidence given in the case.” He then sets out quite briefly what he says is the effect of the evidence. The pleadings have not been abstracted. The instructions are not set out or abstracted. The verdict and judgment are not set out. The motion for a new trial, if any, and the action of the court thereon, if it did act, are not mentioned in appellant’s abstract and brief.

So, at the outset, appellant is met by appellee’s motion to affirm the judgment for noncompliance with Rule IX, which motion must be and is sustained on the authority of numerous cases. See Siloam Springs v. Broyles, 87 Ark. 202, 112 S. W. 219, and the many cases there cited; Queen of Ark. Ins. Co. v. Royal, 102 Ark. 95, 143 S. W. 596; Winn v. Schneider, 207 Ark. 605, 182 S. W. 2d 216.

Appellee has not supplied the deficiencies in appellant ’s abstract, and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 S.W.2d 180, 210 Ark. 938, 1946 Ark. LEXIS 543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/droke-v-rogers-ark-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack