Van Patten v. Wank

PER Curiam. The abstract of the appellant in this case is so deficient that the court is unable to ascertain the facts without exploring the record, which the oourt must decline' to do, as explained in Ruble v. Helm, 57 Ark. 304. See also applications to this rule in the following cases: Shorter University v. Franklin, 75 Ark. 571; Beavers v. Security Mutual Ins. Co., 76 Ark. 138. For these reasons the judgment is affirmed.