This is аn appeal from the circuit court of Pettis county. Appellants have filed what purports to be an abstrаct of the record, under rules-11, 12 and 13, of this court. Respondents filed a. motion to affirm the judgment and suggestions in support thеreof, on the first day of this term, and on account of the sickness of counsel for appellants, the time was еxtended to enable them to file suggestions in opposition.
The motion to affirm is based upon the insufficiency of the abstract under the rules. It is unnecessary to repeat those rules here, as they are to be found in each of the late volumes of the reports. They were-designed and intended to expedite the determination of cаuses in this court and to aid the court in grasping the points of difference between counsel, and the questions upon which a reversal was asked.
The question here presented, however, shows how futile our efforts have been. Aрpellants have filed a printed book of four hundred and twenty-three pages, which they denominate an abstract. This abstract is here in lieu of a complete transcript, by virtue of section 2253, Revised Statutes, 1889. It is challenged by respondents, because on its face it does not purport to-be an abstract of all the record, necessary for the determination of the cause. •
It is shown that there were оne thousand and sixty-five pages of type-written matter of the evidence •alone. Among other grounds for reversаl appellants urge that the verdict was contrary to the evidence; that the court committed error in giving and rеfusing instructions; and error in permitting medical experts 'to answer the hypothetical questions propounded by resрondents because said questions assumed matters not in the evidence.
It is apparent that it is important to respondents that the substance, at least of all the evidence, shall be before us to enable us to rule upon thе propriety of •some of these questions. By the issue thus raised we have been driven to an examination of this abstrаct to ■determine its sufficiency. The first seven pages contain a seemingly fair and clear statement of the рleadings. Then follows about four hundred pages of ■extracts from the evidence. No attempt is made to •statе the substance, nor is it stated in a narrative form, nor are there any explanatory headings or words to indicate the object of the evidеnce, but it consist wholly of literal excerpts of the questions and answers, •as they appeared in the bill of exсeptions. Many omissions occur, but it is not explained whether the ■omitted matter is material or immaterial. Among ■others, Dr. Clough’s testimony is entirely omitted.
Respondents have with great care filed a comparative list, showing how much of the evidence is omitted. 'To the suggestions of respondents, appellants reply that if they desire the omitted reсord, they could file it
The law of this state has cast upon the appellant, not the respondent, the onus of preрaring a printed abstract of the entire record of the cause, which he shall serve on his opponent, аnd file in this court. Revised Statutes, 1889, section 2253. If a party relying upon the provision that his opponent, if not satisfied, shall file a further abstract, can cast the burden on-his adversary, by filing a wholly insufficient and garbled abstract, it can readily be seen that the burden will be on the respondent to maintain his judgment, and not-on the appellant to reverse it.
Moreover, after the respondents have successfully prosecuted their suit to a judgment, there is no principle of justice that would require them to incur .the labor and expense of furnishing this court with the information necessary to a prоper determination of this appeal. It may, and often does, happen that the respondent is too poor to be at this expense, and the appellant amply able to do so.
The respondents, in their motion have fully met the requirements of the decision of this court in Garrett v. Coal Co.,
The appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with rules 11 and 12.