Wells v. Paragon Printing Co., 5--5342
| Decision Date | 01 February 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 5--5342,5--5342 |
| Citation | 462 S.W.2d 471,249 Ark. 950 |
| Parties | John F. WELLS, Appellant, v. PARAGON PRINTING COMPANY et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Bailey, Trimble & Holt, Little Rock, for appellant.
Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, Little Rock, for appellees.
This is a taxpayer's suit brought by appellant, on his own behalf and for all others similarly situated, to cancel a contract made by the State with the appellee, Paragon Printing Company, for the printing of the decisions of this Court during 1968 and 1969. The other appellees are State officials having statutory duties with respect to State contracts.
The Chancellor, after a trial on the issues, dismissed appellant's complaint and he appeals.
Appellant contends here, as in the lower court, that the contract contains provisions violative of statutory authority (Ark.Stats. § 22--223) and is 'indefinite and ambiguous' and, therefore, void.
We cannot reach a consideration of the merits because appellant has failed to comply with Rule 9(d) of the rules of this Court. Not only is the abstract of testimony inadequate, none of the documentary evidence is abstracted, including the contract alleged to be void as containing illegal provisions and being 'indefinite and ambiguous.'
In these circumstances, it would be impossible for the members of the Court to decide the questions argued without individually examining the transcript. The practical reasons which require compliance with Rule 9(d) have been stated many times, and make further discussion here superfluous. Vire v. Vire, 236 Ark. 740, 368 S.W.2d 265.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Winters v. Elders, 95-1069
...Ark. 343, 711 S.W.2d 477 (1986); Farrco Construction et al. v. Goleman, 267 Ark. 159, 589 S.W.2d 573 (1979); Wells v. Paragon Printing Company, 249 Ark. 950, 462 S.W.2d 471 (1971). See also, Smith, Arkansas Practice Abstracting the Record, 31 Ark.L.Rev. 359 (1977). As we have stated many ti......
-
Dyke Industries, Inc. v. E. W. Johnson Const. Co.
...253 Ark. 385, 486 S.W.2d 29 (1972); Baker v. Trotter, 253 Ark. 247, 486 S.W.2d 7 (1972); documentary evidence Wells v. Paragon Printing Co., 249 Ark. 950, 462 S.W.2d 471 (1971); affidavits and contravening affidavits Rowe v. Druyvesteyn Const. Co., 253 Ark. 67, 484 S.W.2d 512 Here the trans......
-
Baker v. Trotter
...decree must be affirmed. Rose City Property Owners' Assn. v. Matthews Co., 250 Ark. 334, 465 S.W.2d 118 (1971); Wells v. Paragon Printing Co., 249 Ark. 950, 462 S.W.2d 471 (1971); Tudor v. Tudor, 247 Ark. 822, 448 S.W.2d 17 (1969); Vire v. Vire, 236 Ark. 740, 368 S.W.2d 265 Affirmed. ...
-
Cash v. Holder, 87-188
...Speed v. Mays, 226 Ark. 213, 288 S.W.2d 953 (1956); Ellington v. Remmel, 226 Ark. 569, 293 S.W.2d 452 (1956); Wells v. Paragon Printing Co., 249 Ark. 950, 462 S.W.2d 471 (1971); Energy Oil Co. v. Rose Oil Co., 250 Ark. 484, 465 S.W.2d 690 (1971). Affirmed. ...