Hoyt v. Beach

• Citation: 85 N.W. 755
• Parties: HOYT ET AL. v. BEACH ET AL.
• Decision Date: 12 April 1901
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

85 N.W. 755

HOYT ET AL.

v.BEACH ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 12, 1901.

Appeal from district court, Carroll county; Z. A. Church, Judge.

From a decree in plaintiffs' favor, the defendants appeal. Affirmed.Geo. W. Paine and F. M. Davenport, for appellants.

J. P. Conner, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The abstract includes a certificate “that it contains all of the evidence offered, received, and introduced on the trial.” The appellees, in an additional abstract filed, after certain denials, set out some evidence claimed to have been omitted, but assert that “the same is not all the evidence in the case, and not all the evidence of the witnesses which it purports to give, and, taken in connection with the abstract of appellants, the two together do not constitute all the evidence in the case.” Thereupon appellants filed an amendment to the original abstract, containing some additional matter, and closing with this statement: “All of the abstracts together, both of appellants and the appellees, together with their amendments thereto, taken together, do not constitute a full, fair, complete, and correct record in this case, and do not correctly set out the record sufficiently for the supreme court to pass upon the questions involved.” This is tantamount to admitting that the record is not such as to enable this court to consider the case on its merits. State v. Wright, 98 Iowa, 702, 6 N. W. 440;In re Holderbaum, 82 Iowa, 69, 47 N. W. 898;Names v. Names, 74 Iowa, 213, 37 N. W. 163;Conwell v. House, 57 Iowa, 754, 11 N. W. 714. See McGillivary v. Case, 107 Iowa, 17, 77 N. W. 483. It was the duty of the appellants to include in their abstract, with amendments, “so much of the abstract of the record as may be necessary to a full understanding of the questions presented.” Section 20, Sup. Ct. Rules. See, also, section 68. Resort is to be had to the transcript, not to supply omissions in the abstracts, but to settle disputes with respect to the record. See rule 22, in connection with sections 4118, 4120, 4122, Code. Were it otherwise, litigants might, at their option, compel the court in any case to use the transcript alone, rather than the printed abstracts, as contemplated by law. As the appellants concede the abstracts do not present the record with sufficient completeness to enable the court to decide the questions argued, the decree will be affirmed.