Karatofsky v. Fybush Bros.
| Decision Date | 12 April 1909 |
| Citation | 118 S.W. 1009 |
| Parties | KARATOFSKY v. FYBUSH BROS. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Garland County; W. H. Evans, Judge.
Action by Fybush Bros. against J. Karatofsky. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
S. W. Leslie, for appellant. Greaves & Martin, for appellees.
Appellees, Fybush Bros., brought suit against appellant, J. Karatofsky, in the Garland circuit court, to recover the sum of $1,090.30 alleged to be due upon account for goods, wares, and merchandise sold appellant by appellees. There was a trial before a jury, and a verdict returned in favor of appellees for the sum of $917.17. The case is here on appeal.
The only assignment of error is based upon the action of the trial court in refusing to give a certain instruction asked by appellant. This instruction is set out in appellant's abstract, but it appears that other instructions were given by the court, and that they are not set out in appellant's abstract. Rule 9 of this court requires that the instructions given, as well as those refused, by the court should be set out. The rule was adopted for the purpose of facilitating the work of the court, and is a very salutary one. Appellees have moved to affirm the judgment for noncompliance with this rule, and the motion will be granted. For cases in point, where the rule has been enforced, we refer to the cases of Mine La Motte L. & S. Co. v. Coal Co., 85 Ark. 123, 107 S. W. 174, and Files v. Law (Ark.) 115 S. W. 373, in which earlier cases applying the rule are cited.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial