Legal Opinion

Morris v. Mauney

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 29, 1950No. 4-9213Published

1Per curiam

On May 1, 1950, we granted appellant until May 8, 1950, to perfect Ms abstract in response to appellee’s motion to affirm for failure to comply with Rule 9 of tMs court. Neither the original abstract and brief nor the amendment filed by appellant on May 8, 1950, makes any reference to a motion for a new trial. Under Rule 9 a judgment will be affirmed unless appellant’s brief shows that a motion for new trial was filed and overruled. Van Hoozer v. Hendricks, 143 Ark. 463, 221 S. W. 178.

It is also well settled that only errors apparent on the face of the record will be considered where there is…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Van Hoozer v. HendricksSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920
  2. Miller v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1917

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API