ARK.] 161 LOVE V. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO. INS. Co. 5-3968 407 S. W. 2d 118 Opithon delivered October 10, 1966 [Rehealing denied November 14, 1986 . ] 1. APPEAL & ERROR—ABSTRACTS OF RECORD—NECESSITY & DUTY TO MAKE.—Under provisions of Sup. Ct. Rule 9 (d), appellant is required to abstract such material parts of the pleadings, proceeding s, facts, documents and other matters in the record as are necessary to an understanding of all questions presented to the Supreme Court for decision. 2. APPEAL & ERROR—ABSTRACTS OF RECORD—EFFECT OF FAILURE TO MAKE.—Judgment of the trial court affirmed under Sup. Ct. Rule 9 (d) where appellant's brief contained no abstract of an 8 page complaint, a 7 page answer, and 7 pages of exhibits, and there was no abstract of several order g of the lower court. Appeal from Union Circuit Court, Second Division, Mel ND Mayfield, Judge; affirmed. Ben D. Lindsey, for appellant. Maliony & Yocum and Cocktill, Laser, McGehee & Sharp, for appellee. PAUL WARD. Justice. This litigation concerns the meaning of certain provisions in an automobile liability insurance policy. On July 20, 1963 Dan Love (appellant) was injured when his car collided with a 1955 Buick, owned and driven by Kenneth Sweet. Appellant sued Sweet and, on May 20, 1964 recovered a judgment for $8,500—no appeal taken. On June 16, 1964 appellant, being unable to collect from Sweet, filed this suit against the State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ( appellee herein) contending he was subrogated to the right of Sweet under an insurance policy which had been issued to him by appellee covering the 1955 Buick_ The matter wa s submitted to the jili y, resulting in
162 LOVE L. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO. INS. [241 a verdict in favor of appellee. Appellant now prosecutes this appeal for a reversal. First, we are confronted with a motion by appellee to affirm on the ground appellant has not complied with this court's Rule 9 (d). We have concluded the motion must be affirmed. The above Rule requires appellant to abstract such "material parts of the pleadings, proceedings, facts, documents, and other matters in the record as are necessary to an understanding of all questions presented to this Court for decision." Many times we have called attention to the fact that it is impracticable (if not impossible) for all the justices to read the entire record. We find, in this ease, the abstract in appellant's brief does no_t prode _such_an _understanding._There_ is no abstract of the complaint which consists of eight pages; of the answer which consists of seven pages; of the exhibits presented to the trial court consisting of eight pages, and there is no absti act of se v el al oi del s of the court. The conclusion which we have reached to affirm the judgment of the trial court is in conformity with the following decisions of this Court: Ellington v. Rem mel, 226 Ark. 569, 293 S. W. 2d 452; Oriffin v Mo. Poe, Rd. Co., 227 Ark. 312, 298 S. W. 2d 55; ...-liolerson v. Stall-ings, 234 Ark. 680, 354 S. W. 2d 21; Fire v. Vire, 236 Ark. 740, 368 S. W. 2d 265; Weir v. Hill, 237 Ark. 922, 377 S. W. 2d 178, and; Hurley v. Owens, 238 Ark. 874, 385 S. W. 2d 636. Affirmed. MCFADDIN, J., corkurs. EEL F. MCFADDIY. Justice, concurring. The purpose of this concurrence is to state that I would affirm the judgment on the merits.
ARK.] 163 From the abstract and briefs I was able to understand that the case was submitted to the jury to answer two interrogatories. These were answered adversely to the appellant, and there was evidence to support the jury's answers. I found no errors in the instructions: so I would affirm on thp merits.
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.