Garford v. Hyder

Arizona Supreme Court

Garford v. Hyder

276 P. 523, 35 Ariz. 264, 1929 Ariz. LEXIS 144

CourtArizona Supreme Court

DecidedApril 26, 1929

DocketCivil No. 2771.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 276 P. 523 (Garford v. Hyder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arizona Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Garford v. Hyder, 276 P. 523, 35 Ariz. 264, 1929 Ariz. LEXIS 144 (Ark. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Appellant in this case has wholly failed to file any abstract of record or copies of the reporter's transcript of evidence as provided by Rule 4 of this court. It is the duty of counsel appealing a case to prepare and file such an abstract and transcript as will present every question which it is desired *Page 265 that the court shall review. Nor will the court examine the original pleadings and record to supply this deficiency. LibertyMining Smelting Co. v. Geddes, 11 Ariz. 54, 90 P. 332;Donohoe v. E.P. S.W.R.R. Co., 11 Ariz. 293, 94 P. 1091;Daggs v. Howard Sheep Co., 16 Ariz. 283, 145 P. 140;Martin v. Bankers' Trust Co., 18 Ariz. 55, Ann. Cas. 1918E 1240, 156 P. 87.

The assignments of error in appellant's brief are such that we cannot consider them intelligently in this state of the record, and the judgment of the trial court is necessarily affirmed.

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

Appellant in this case has wholly failed to file any abstract of record or copies of the reporter's transcript of evidence as provided by Rule 4 of this court. It is the duty of counsel appealing a case to prepare and file such an abstract and transcript as will present every question which it is desired *Page 265 that the court shall review. Nor will the court examine the original pleadings and record to supply this deficiency. LibertyMining Smelting Co. v. Geddes, 11 Ariz. 54, 90 P. 332;Donohoe v. E.P. S.W.R.R. Co., 11 Ariz. 293, 94 P. 1091;Daggs v. Howard Sheep Co., 16 Ariz. 283, 145 P. 140;Martin v. Bankers' Trust Co., 18 Ariz. 55, Ann. Cas. 1918E 1240, 156 P. 87.

The assignments of error in appellant's brief are such that we cannot consider them intelligently in this state of the record, and the judgment of the trial court is necessarily affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 P. 523, 35 Ariz. 264, 1929 Ariz. LEXIS 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garford-v-hyder-ariz-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack