Case ID: ill-app_142/html/0486-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John J. Hanks, Appellee, v. Catherine E. Miller et al., Appellants.
    Appeals and errors—what essential to preserve questions of law for review. In order to preserve for review the question as to the propriety of the court’s action in overruling a motion to vacate a sheriff’s sale, etc., it is essential that the motion, the ruling thereon and an exception, be preserved by bill of exceptions; it is not sufficient that the clerk recite the same in his transcript.
    Assumpsit. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Macon county; the Hon. William C. Johns, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the November term, 1907.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed April 21, 1908.
    Jack & Deck, for appellants.
    Redmon & Hogan and Whitley & Fitzgerald, for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

The Circuit Court entered judgment overruling a motion by appellants to quash and vacate a sale by the sheriff of certain personal property under an execution upon a judgment against appellants and in favor of appellee, and to re-tax the costs allowed said sheriff for expenses in caring for the property prior to the sale. This appeal is prosecuted from such order.

While the transcript of the record prepared by the clerk recites that the motion in question was made, the ruling and judgment of the court thereon and the exceptions of appellants to such rulings are not embodied in a bill of exceptions signed and sealed by the judge as is required by law. People v. Drain. Com., 156 Ill. 614.

We are therefore precluded from considering the questions raised by the assignments of error, and must presume that the judgment was properly entered.

Affirmed.