De Queen & Eastern Railway Co. v. Thornton
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Howard Circuit Court; James S. Steel, Judge; There is no abstract of the pleadings, nor of the motion for new trial; only a portion of the evidence and only two of the instructions. Without an exploration of the transcript the court can not determine whether or not prejudicial error was committed. The judgment should be affirmed for noncompliance with rule 9. 93 Ark. 85; Id. 426; 92 Ark. 41; Id. 144; 93 Ark. 213; 92 Ark. 245; 90 Ark. 230; 83 Ark. 359.
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
Appellant has prosecuted this appeal to reverse a judgment rendered against it in favor of appellee for damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by him while a passenger on one of appellant’s trains on account of the negligence of appellant’s servants in operating said train. Appellee asks that the judgment be affirmed because appellant has failed to comply with rule 9-of this court. It may be stated at the outset that we have uniformly enforced this rule where we have been asked to do so, and no sufficient excuse for noncompliance with it has been made. In the present case there…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Maxey v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. BoylesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Pace v. CrandellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. BurrowsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Wallace v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
3Cited by11 opinions
- Keller v. SawyerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Haynes v. GwinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
- Barnett Bros. v. Western Assurance Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
- Greenville Stone & Gravel Co. v. ChaneySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
- Storthz v. WattsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.