From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Seerup v. Swanson

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Feb 7, 1947
26 N.W.2d 33 (Minn. 1947)

Opinion

No. 34,302.

February 7, 1947.

Appeal and error — dismissal of appeal — failure to include in record proper abstract of settled case.

Supreme court in its discretion and on its own motion may dismiss an appeal for failure of an appellant to include in the printed record such an abridgement or abstract of the settled case as is essential to a proper consideration and understanding of the questions raised by the appeal.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the municipal court of St. Paul, Ramsey county, Royden S. Dane, Judge, denying his motion for a new trial. Appeal dismissed.

A.M. Joyce, for appellant.

A.I. Levin and George G. Chapin, for respondent.



Appellant has made no pretense whatever of complying with Rule VIII(2) of this court, requiring that the printed record shall contain (212 Minn. xli) "such abridgement of the settled case as will clearly and fully present the questions arising on the appeal." No portion of the settled case, by way of abridgement or otherwise, is presented. In fact, the printed record is barren of the material necessary for an understanding of the issues. We have here not an error in judgment as to what should be printed, but a complete failure to make any effort to provide the court with an abridgement of the settled case. No timely or satisfactory showing has been made to justify such total noncompliance. This court in its discretion and on its own motion may dismiss an appeal for failure of an appellant to include in the printed record such an abridgement or abstract of the settled case as is essential to a proper consideration and understanding of the questions raised by the appeal. The inclusion in the printed record of an adequate abridgement of the material evidence and rulings involved in the trial below, though essential to a proper consideration of the issues by all members of the appellate court, is not merely for the convenience of this court, but is necessary to enable counsel to bring their briefs and oral arguments into focus with respect to the points in issue. See, Begin v. Liederbach Bus Co. Inc. 167 Minn. 84, 208 N.W. 546; Iowa City v. Glassman, 155 Iowa 671, 136 N.W. 899, 40 L.R.A.(N.S.) 852; Leach v. Mechanics' Sav. Bank (Iowa) 218 N.W. 907; 1 Dunnell, Dig. Supp. § 353; 3 Am. Jur., Appeal and Error, §§ 612-613; 4 C.J.S., Appeal and Error, §§ 989, 999, 1110.

The appeal is dismissed.

So ordered.


Summaries of

Seerup v. Swanson

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Feb 7, 1947
26 N.W.2d 33 (Minn. 1947)
Case details for

Seerup v. Swanson

Case Details

Full title:MAX SEERUP v. C. L. SWANSON, d. b. a . C. L. SWANSON CATTLE COMPANY

Court:Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date published: Feb 7, 1947

Citations

26 N.W.2d 33 (Minn. 1947)
26 N.W.2d 33

Citing Cases

Webster v. Schwartz

The foregoing statement contains certain limitations which to that extent restrict its application. In…

Truesdale v. Friedman

6. Beyond emphasizing the need for professional responsibility to present a proper record on appeal, some…