Ozark Hardware Company v. Covington

63 S.W.2d 844, 187 Ark. 1054, 1933 Ark. LEXIS 204
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedOctober 23, 1933
Docket4-3151
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 63 S.W.2d 844 (Ozark Hardware Company v. Covington) 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
Ozark Hardware Company v. Covington, 63 S.W.2d 844, 187 Ark. 1054, 1933 Ark. LEXIS 204 (Ark. 1933).

Opinion

Johnson, C. J.

Seeking judgment on an account for $36.05, appellant instituted this suit in a justice of the peace court of Madison County against appellee, wherein it recovered judgement for said sum. Appellee prosecuted an appeal to the circuit court wherein she was successful in defeating a recovery. Appellant prosecutes this appeal to reverse this adverse judgment.

Rule IX of the Supreme Court provides, in part:

“In all civil cases, the appellant shall file with the clerk of this court, when his case is subject to call for submission, an abstract or 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 shall contain full references to the pages of the transcript.”

Rule XII is to the following effect:

“When no abstract and brief have been filed by the appellant, in accordance with Rules IX and X, when the ease is called for trial, the appellee may have the writ of error or appeal dismissed, or the judgment affirmed as of course.”

Appellant has made no effort to file an abstract of the pleadings and testimony introduced upon the trial of this case in the circuit court. The rules of the Supreme Court are promulgated for the purpose of expediting the business before the court. At least some effort should be made by counsel to comply with the rules of the court. In the instant ease Rule IX was completely ignored by counsel for appellant, for which reason, under Rule XII, this case must be affirmed.

The judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.

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

Related

Checker Cab Baggage Co., Inc. v. Harrison
87 S.W.2d 32 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
63 S.W.2d 844, 187 Ark. 1054, 1933 Ark. LEXIS 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ozark-hardware-company-v-covington-ark-1933.