Zini v. Perciful, 86-76
| Decision Date | 30 June 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-76,86-76 |
| Citation | 289 Ark. 343,711 S.W.2d 477 |
| Parties | Decima ZINI et al., Appellants, v. Freddie PERCIFUL, Administrator et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Greene Law Offices, Anthony J. Sherman, Little Rock, for appellants.
R.W. Laster, Wallace and Hamner, James R. Wallace, Little Rock, for appellees.
Angelo Zini died in October, 1983. By petition an attempt was made to probate any one of three separate writings as Mr. Zini's will. The validity of all the proffered instruments was challenged. The court appointed a master to take testimony. This appeal is from a judgment adopting the master's finding that none of the three writings was a valid will. One was found to be largely typewritten but not witnessed. The other two, though handwritten, were found to contain numerous strike-throughs, to be almost illegible, to fail to reflect an intent to make a will, and to lack the necessary words of dispositive character.
The appellants, beneficiaries of the purported will that was dated May 17, 1978, argue that because there is a strong presumption against intestacy, the trial court should have found the language of the instrument sufficient to constitute a valid holographic will. Two phrases, apparently quoted from the writing in question, are relied on to support the argument.
It is impossible for us to consider the appellants' contentions, because counsel have not provided us either with an exact quotation of the instrument in question or with an abstract of it. We have no idea how it reads. We are referred by the appellants to Exhibit 2 in the transcript, but for a hundred years we have pointed out, repeatedly, that there being only one transcript it is impractical for all members of the court to examine it, and we will not do so. An early case, among scores of such cases, is Shorter University v. Franklin, 75 Ark. 571, 88 S.W. 974. There we noted, in 1905, that the rule (now Rule 9) had been promulgated twenty years earlier.
In a reply brief counsel for the appellants put forth this explanation for the omission in their original brief:
Appellants were unable to abstract the decedent's wills in words. Rule 9(d) provides that when a map, or other similar exhibit can not be abstracted in words, appellant shall reproduce such exhibit and attach it to the copies of the abstract. Appellants attempted to file their brief attaching a copy of the subject wills to their brief, but the Supreme Court Clerk...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. v. Doss
...Hunter v. Williams, 308 Ark. 276, 823 S.W.2d 894 (1992); Mills v. Holland, 307 Ark. 418, 820 S.W.2d 63 (1991); Zini v. Perciful, 289 Ark. 343, 711 S.W.2d 477 (1986); Shorter University v. Franklin, 75 Ark. 571, 88 S.W. 974 Therefore, we cannot consider the merits of J.B. Hunt's first argume......
-
Winters v. Elders, 95-1069
...Logan County v. Tritt, 302 Ark. 81, 787 S.W.2d 239 (1990); Jolly v. Hartje, 294 Ark. 16, 740 S.W.2d 143 (1987); Zini v. Perciful, 289 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,......
-
Stephens Production Co. v. Johnson, 91-333
...Gen. Agency v. Lavender, 301 Ark. 503, 785 S.W.2d 28 (1990); Cash v. Holder, 293 Ark. 537, 739 S.W.2d 538 (1987); Zini v. Perciful, 289 Ark. 343, 711 S.W.2d 477 (1986). Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule HOLT, C.J., and BROWN, J., not participating. WRIGHT, Special Chief Justice, and R......
-
Get Rid Of It, Inc. v. City of Smackover
...considered a trap for the unwary, since some form of the rule has been in existence for over one hundred years. See Zini v. Perciful, 289 Ark. 343, 711 S.W.2d 477 (1986). It is fundamental that the record on appeal is confined to that which is abstracted. In re Estate of Brumley, 323 Ark. 4......
-
THE END OF AN ERA? ABOLISHING THE ABSTRACT REQUIREMENT FOR ARKANSAS APPELLATE BRIEFS.
...the record; that it is wholly impractical for the seven members of this court to read the one record.")); see also Zini v. Perciful, 289 Ark. 343, 344, 711 S.W.2d 477, 478 (1986) (stating that "[i]t is impossible for us to consider the appellants' contentions, because counsel have not provi......