TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wilkerson v. Fudge

Wilkerson v. Fudge.

Wilkerson v. Fudge, 1 S.W.2d 801 (Ark. 1928)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 23, 1928
Judges
McHaney
Citations
1 S.W.2d 801176 Ark. 111928 Ark. LEXIS 646

Opinion of the Court — McHaney

McHaney, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment against appellant, holding him jointly liable with S. S. Wilkerson and Robert Wilkerson on a promissory note for $411 in favor of ¡appellees. Counsel for appellees have filed a motion to affirm the case for failure to comply with Rule 9 of this court, in that' appellant failed to abstract the pleadings, the evidence, the instructions, the judgment of the court, the motion for a new trial, if one was filed, and the order overruling-it, if one was made. The abstract and brief as originally filed on behalf of appellant failed to comply with said rule in the above particulars, and, after counsel for appellees had filed his brief urging an affirmance on this account, appellant applied to and obtained leave of this court to comply with said rule. He thereafter filed an amended abstract, setting out the instructions of the court., and interlined in his statement of facts page references to the transcript.

Ten witnesses testified in the case, but this evidence is not abstracted. Appellant contents, himself by a statement of what he conceives the facts to be, but does not set out the substance of each witness’ testimony. He does not abstract the judgment of the court, nor the motion for a new trial, if one, and the order overruling it, if one, and we cannot tell, without an examination of the record, whether there was a motion for a new trial, and, if so, whether the errors complained of were assigned in the motion for a new trial.

Under this state of facts we feel that we will have to sustain the motion to affirm for the noncompliance with this rule. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1928: 11930: 11931: 11933: 21935: 11937: 11941: 11948: 11952: 119282026peak 1933 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Golden v. Wallace207 S.W.2d 605 (Ark. 1948)
  2. Barrett v. Fort Smith Structural Steel Co.246 S.W.2d 414 (Ark. 1952)
  3. Parrish v. Parrish86 S.W.2d 557 (Ark. 1935)
  4. Sternberg v. Snow King Baking Powder Company57 S.W.2d 1057 (Ark. 1933)
  5. Dewey Portland Cement Co. v. Benton County Lumber Co.63 S.W.2d 649 (Ark. 1933)
  6. American Insurance Union v. Rowland8 S.W.2d 452 (Ark. 1928)

Most recent

  1. Barrett v. Fort Smith Structural Steel Co.246 S.W.2d 414 (Ark. 1952)
  2. Golden v. Wallace207 S.W.2d 605 (Ark. 1948)
  3. Bauer v. Dotterer155 S.W.2d 54 (Ark. 1941)
  4. Shibley v. White104 S.W.2d 461 (Ark. 1937)
  5. Parrish v. Parrish86 S.W.2d 557 (Ark. 1935)
  6. Dewey Portland Cement Co. v. Benton County Lumber Co.63 S.W.2d 649 (Ark. 1933)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list