Case Name: STEPHENS PRODUCTION COMPANY, Arkla, Inc., Arkla Exploration Company, and Arkoma Production Company v. Mildred M. JOHNSON, Trustee of the Mildred M. Johnson Trust, Mamie J. Keifer, Rosamond Johnson, Nora House, Sara Adams Ridgway, Sunbelt Exploration Company, and Jim T. Walker
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1992-12-07
Citations: 311 Ark. 206
Docket Number: 91-333
Parties: STEPHENS PRODUCTION COMPANY, Arkla, Inc., Arkla Exploration Company, and Arkoma Production Company v. Mildred M. JOHNSON, Trustee of the Mildred M. Johnson Trust, Mamie J. Keifer, Rosamond Johnson, Nora House, Sara Adams Ridgway, Sunbelt Exploration Company, and Jim T. Walker
Judges: Holt, C. J. and Brown, J., not participating.
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 311
Pages: 206–209

Head Matter:
STEPHENS PRODUCTION COMPANY, Arkla, Inc., Arkla Exploration Company, and Arkoma Production Company v. Mildred M. JOHNSON, Trustee of the Mildred M. Johnson Trust, Mamie J. Keifer, Rosamond Johnson, Nora House, Sara Adams Ridgway, Sunbelt Exploration Company, and Jim T. Walker
91-333
842 S.W.2d 851
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Opinion delivered December 7, 1992
[Rehearing denied January 11, 1993. ]
Smith, Stroud, McClerkin, Dunn & Nutter, by: Hayes C. McClerkin and Barry A. Bryant, for appellants.
Dorsey Ryan, for appellee.
Turner & Mainard, by: Lonnie Turner, for amicus curiae.
Holt, C.J., and Brown, J., not participating.

Opinion:
Robert H. Dudley, Justice.
The chancellor cancelled the oil and gas leases to some of the vertical geological formations of a drilling unit. The defendant production companies appeal from the chancellor's finding that they have abandoned some of the formations, and the plaintiffs cross-appeal from the finding that the defendants have not totally abandoned the leases.
We cannot reach the merits of the case and must affirm the final order on both direct and cross-appeal for failure of the parties to comply with Rule 9(d) of the Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. There is no abstract, by either the appellants or the cross-appellants, of the complaint, the cross-complaint, or either of the answers. An abstract of those pleadings would be helpful. There is no abstract of the chancellor's findings of fact or of the final order, and these are essential in order to understand this case. Equally critical are certain exhibits which are not abstracted or copied. The testimony of the witnesses about the exhibits is abstracted, but, without the exhibits, much of the testimony about the issues is meaningless.
It is necessary for a party to abstract the essential portions of the proceedings relied upon for appeal purposes. Otherwise, all seven members of the court would have to pass, from office to office, the one transcript and the one set of exhibits in order to examine and understand the case, and, with the number of cases submitted, that is impossible. We have no alternative other than to do as we have done in other comparable cases and affirm the decree of the chancellor. See Hunter v. Williams, 308 Ark. 276, 823 S.W.2d 894 (1992); Meyers Gen. Agency v. Lavender, 301 Ark. 503, 785 S.W.2d 28 (1990); Cash v. Holder, 293 Ark. 537, 739 S.W.2d 538 (1987); Zini v. Perciful, 289 Ark. 343, 711 S.W.2d 477 (1986).
Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 9(d).
Holt, C. J. and Brown, J., not participating.
Special Chief Justice Wright and Special Justice Ross concur.