
    KIBER, ADM’X, ET AL. v. KIBER.
    Nashville,
    December Term, 1886.
    SUPREME COURT PRACTICE. Affirmance on motion oí ap-pellee filing transcript of record, -where appellant has failed to do so.
    Where the. appellant fails to file a transcript of the record within the proper time, and the axjpellee does so, and asks for an affirmance of the decree, which is resisted, upon the ground that the parties had agreed that the transcript need not be made ont, as they were- negotiating- a compromise of the soil, which agreement the one side affirms and the other denies, this mfikes an issue of fact which the supreme court will not try, but will affirm the decree of the court below. [See Code, sec. 4921, and note; secs. 5858, 5859, 5892(2), 4874.]
    Cited and distinguished: Hahr v. Musgrove, 12 Lea, 289.
    Appeal from chancery court of Navidson. county.
    Dodd & Anderson and T. M. Steger, for complainants; "W. D. Covington and E. T. Holman, for defendant; Vm. G. Brien, for defending creditors.
   Turkey, Ch. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The appellee files the transcript, and asks affirmance under the statute. This is resisted upon the ground that the parties had agreed that no transcript heed be made out, as the parties were negotiating a compromise of the suit. The one side affirms; the other denies. This makes an issue of fact which we will not try. In a case of contest like this one, we must pursue the statute, and affirm the decree of the court below. In Hahr v. Musgrove, 12 Lea, 289, there ivas no disputed agreement.

Affirmed.  