Opinion
No. 80-258.
Opinion delivered March 2, 1981
APPEAL ERROR — FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE 9(e)(2) OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE — AFFIRMANCE ON APPEAL. — Where appellant brief contains nothing in the way of an abstract other than pleadings and he has cited no authority in sue of the alleged errors, the judgment of the trial court will be due to appellant's failure to comply with Rule 9(e)(2), Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, Ark. Stat. Ann. Vol. 3A (Repl. 1979).
Appeal from Independence Circuit Court, Leroy Blankenship, Judge; affirmed.
Zane Fair, pro se.
No brief for appellee
Appellant brought suit below for personal injuries to his minor son and property damage to motorcycle belonging to appellant, as the result of a motor vehicle collision between appellant's son and the appellee on August 28, 1975. A unanimous jury verdict in favor defendant-appellee was returned and appellant appeals on seven assignments of error.
Appellant's brief contains nothing in the way of an abstract other than pleadings and he has cited no authority in support of the alleged errors. It would be impossible to give intelligent consideration to any of appellant's points of error on the basis of appellant's brief We therefore affirm due to failure to comply with Rule 9(e)(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court. Umholtz v. Allen, 254 Ark. 722, 495 S.W.2d 874 (1973); Dickson v. Harpole, 238 Ark. 775, 384 S.W.2d 472 (1964).
Affirmed.