St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. Newman
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Crittenden Circuit Court; Frank Smith, Judge; submission set aside.
1Per curiam
On examination of what purports to be the appellant’s abstract, it is found to be no abstract or abridgment of the record at all, but a literal copy of the record. This is not a compliance with the rule of the court, for to print too much of the record is as much an infraction of the rule as to print too little. Rule 9, in plain terms, requires the appellant to furnish “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…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Thomson v. Dierks Lumber & Coal Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1945
- Smith v. PondSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1976
- Reeves v. MilesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1963