938 DROKE V. ROGERS, [210 DROKE V. ROGERS. 4-8P26 198 S. AV. 2d 180 Opinion delivered December 16, 1946. APPEAL AND ERROR.—Appellant having failed to abstract the pleadings, instructions, verdict and judgment and motion for new trial, appellee's motion to affirm for failure to comply with rule IX of this court will, since appellee has not supplied the necessary abstract, be granted. Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court; John L. Bled-soe, Judge ; affirmed. Vernon J. King and E. Newton Ellis, for appellant. Schoonover (E . Steimel, for appellee. MCHANt y , Justice. Appellant says : " This is an action to recover broker's commissions alleged by appel-lee to have been earned on the sale of property of the appellant. We believe the record in this case shows the following to be the evidence given in the case." He then
ARK . 939 sets out quite briefly what he says is the effect of the evidence. The pleadings have not been abstracted. The instructiQns are not -set out or abstracted. The verdict and judgment are not set out. The motion for , a new trial, if any, and the action of the court thereon, if it did _act, are not mentioned in appellant's abstract and brief. So, at the outset, appellant is met by appellee's , motion to affirm the jUdgment for noncompliance with ,Rnle 1X., which motion must be and is sustained on the -authority of numerous cases. See Siloam Springs v. Broyles, 87 Ark. 202, 112 S. W. 219, and the many cases there cited; Qrueen of Ark. Ins. Co. v. Royal, 102 Ark. 95, ,143 S. W. 596; Winn v. Schneider, 207 Ark. 605, 182 S. W. 2€1 216. Appellee has not supplied the deficiencies in appellant's abstract, and the judgment is 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.