874 HURLEY V. OWENS. • [238 HURLEY V. OWENS 5-3410 385 S. W. 2d 636
Opinion delivered January 11, 1965 APPEAL AND ERROR — EFFECT OF FAILURE TO ABSTRACT RECORD.—Chancellor's decree affirmed under Supreme Court Rule 9 (d) where the pleadings, exhibits, and decree were abstracted but there was no abstract of the testimony which was essential to a decision on the merits, it being contrary to the practice of the Supreme Court to explore the record to determine the facts. • Appealed from Union Chancery Court, Second sion, Claude E. Love, Chancellor ; affirmed. Ben D. Lindsey; fOr appellant. Shackleford & Shackleford, for appellee. CARLETON HARRIS, Chief Justice. This appeal relates to the validity of three deeds to lands located in Union County, appellant apparently contending that there was not, under the law, proPer delivery of the deeds, and further contending that the court erred in admitting certain testimony. We do not reach the merits of the case, for tinder Rule 9 (d) of this court, it is necessary , that the judgement be affirmed. We have stated numerous times that we are not required to explore a transcript that is lodged with us, and that the duty rests on the appellant to supply this court with such an abridgment of the record as will enable us to understand the matters presented. Vire v. Vire, 236 Ark. 740, 368 S. W. 2d 265 ; Weir v. Hill, 237 Ark. 922, 377 S. W. 2d 178. The pleadings, exhibits, and decree are abstracted, but there is no abstract of the testimony, although several witnesses testified. The testimony is essential to a decision on the merits, and to determine the facts, we would be required to explore the record, which, as stated, is contrary to our -practice. Affirmed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.