APPEAL ERROR — FAILURE TO ABSTRACT CHANCELLOR'S DECREE — AFFIRMANCE UNDER RULE 9(D). — Appellant's failure to abstract chancellor's decree left appellate court without the benefit of its conclusions on 7 separate findings of law and fact, was violative of Supreme Court Rule 9(d) because the abstract was necessary to an understanding of all questions presented for decision and required affirmance because of the omission.
PER CURIAM.
In disposing of this rather complicated case the trial court made seven separate findings, some of law, some of fact, some of mixed law and fact. The decree of the chancellor is not abstracted and therefore we are left without the benefit of those conclusions. The omission violates our Rule 9(d) because an abstract of the decree in this case is "necessary to an understanding of all questions presented to this court for decision . . ." Tudor v. Tudor, 247 Ark. 822, 448 S.W.2d 17 (1969); Weir v. Hill, 237 Ark. 922, 377 S.W.2d 178 (1964); pyramid Life Ins. Co. v. Hamilton, 237 Ark. 797, 376 S.W.2d 555 (1964); Davidson v. Messing, 214 Ark. 227, 215 S.W.2d 138 (1949); Ransom v. Warner, 193 Ark. 1179, 103 S.W.2d 629 (1937).
Affirmed under Rule 9(d).