Opinion
No. 78-173
Opinion delivered January 15, 1979 [Rehearing denied February 12, 1979.]
APPEAL ERROR — FAILURE OF APPELLANT TO ABSTRACT RECORD IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUPREME COURT RULE 9 — AFFIRMANCE UPON APPEAL. — Where an appellant totally fails to comply with Rule 9(d), Hues of the Arkansas Supreme Court, which requires that an appellant abstract the record by condensing the pleadings, proceedings, facts and documents in the record, the appeal will be affirmed under Rule 9(e)(2), Rules of the Supreme Court.
Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court, Gerald Brown, Judge; affirmed.
Appellant, pro se.
Jim Stallcup, for appellees.
This appeal is affirmed under Rule 9(e)(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Arkansas because appellant failed to abstract any of the record in violation of Rule 9(d).
Rule 9 requires the abstract of the record to be a condensation of the pleadings, proceedings, facts and documents in the record. The appellant totally failed to comply with the rule. In numerous recent cases we have found it necessary to affirm for noncompliance with Rule 9(d): Dyke Industries v. Johnson Const. Co., et al, 261 Ark. 790, 551 S.W.2d 217 (1977); Manes v. M.O.V.E., Inc., et al, 261 Ark. 793, 552 S.W.2d 211 (1977); Dairyland Insurance Co. v. Carter, 261 Ark. 795, 551 S.W.2d 211 (1977); Bank of Ozark v. Isaacs, 263 Ark. 113, 563 S.W.2d 707 (1978); Weston v. Ponder, 263 Ark. 370, 565 S.W.2d 31 (1978); Merritt v. Merritt, 263 Ark. 432, 565 S.W.2d 603 (1978); Smith v. Smith, 263 Ark. 578, 567 S.W.2d 88 (1978).
Affirmed.
We agree. HARRIS, C.J., and FOGLEMAN and HOLT, JJ.