Case ID: ill-app_70/html/0371-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Gary", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Paul Knefel v. David G. Swartz.
    1. Appellate Court Practice—Grounds for Reversal Must be Shown by the Abstract.—Whatever the appellant relies upon for a reversal of the judgment must be shown by the abstract.
    Assumpsit, on a guaranty of a promissory note. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Thomas Gr. Windes, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the March term, 1897.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed June 14, 1897
    John Knefel, attorney for appellant.
    Oliver & Meoartney, attorneys for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Gary

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The abstract does not show what was the declaration upon which the appellee recovered, nor upon what evidence, on an ex parte trial.

It is impossible to tell from the abstract whether the affidavits presented on a motion for a new trial, have any relation to the cause of action upon which the recovery was had.

In such a case we can not say that the court erred in not granting a new trial.

Whatever the appellant relies upon for reversal of the judgment he must show by his abstract. City Electric Ry. v. Jones, 161 Ill. 47; Wabash R. R. v. Smith, 58 Ill. App. 419; Newman v. Jacobson, 67 Ill. App. 639.

The judgment' is affirmed.