Beavers v. Security Mut. Ins. Co.

Decision Date24 June 1905
Citation88 S.W. 848
PartiesBEAVERS v. SECURITY MUT. INS. CO.
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Yell County; William L. Morse, Judge.

Action by one Beavers against the Security Mutual Insurance Company. On motion to dismiss. Denied on condition of filing additional abstract.

R. C. Bullock, for appellant. Murphy & Mehaffy, for appellee.

HILL, C. J.

This case is set for July 10th, and appellant filed abstract and brief in apt time, and the appellee, instead of filing its abstract and brief, has invoked the ruling of the court on the sufficiency of the abstract of appellant in a motion to dismiss for noncompliance with rule 9. The court cannot take time to read the record and briefs in advance of submission to settle questions determinable in the trial, and confines its ruling to the matters appearing in the motion and response thereto. The appellee says that the five witnesses testified for appellant on material issues and nineteen testified on behalf of appellee, and that the testimony is material and bearing on the issues, and that brought out by appellee on cross-examination of appellant's witnesses goes to sustain the verdict and justify the instructions, and that appellant omits this testimony and all reference to it except an excerpt from appellant's testimony. The appellant responds that he has abstracted the pleadings and all other matters in the record necessary to a full understanding of all questions presented to the court. It appears that the instructions of the trial court are the matters here complained of, and appellant, having set them forth fully, says this testimony is immaterial, and most of it was brought out by appellee, and that it is its duty to abstract its own testimony under the rule. In this appellant is mistaken. He must abstract the entire case so far as it is material to the issues raised on appeal, and the rules do not contemplate that each side abstract its own version of the case, but that the appellant abstract all that is necessary. In case of difference of opinion as to what is necessary to a full determination of the issues presented, the appellee can abstract such further matters as he sees proper. The substance of the evidence is always material in testing the instructions, and, if it is not set out, then the only question on the instructions before the court is whether any facts would justify the instructions. It does not by any means follow that the appellant must set out all of a vast...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT