Case ID: ill-app_209/html/0542-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice McSurely", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kate S. Caruthers, Appellee, v. Joe Macaluso, trading as Joe Macaluso & Company, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 23,615. (Not to be reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1917.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed March 5, 1918.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Kate S. Caruthers, plaintiff, against Joe Macaluso, trading as Joe Macaluso & Company, defendant, for rent due under a written lease. From, a judgment on a verdict directed for plaintiff for $397.75, defendant appeals.
    Schaffner & Friend, for appellant; Thomas Jones Meek, of counsel.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Appeal and ebbob, § 1752
      
      —when judgment affirmed for insufficiency of abstract. Where the abstract on an appeal does not inform the Appellate Court what the verdict and judgment were, but merely states that the jury “rendered its verdict, to which verdict defendant excepted,” the judgment may properly be affirmed.
    2. Appeal and ebbob, § 1165*—when nothing for review on appeal. Where no evidence is • introduced in support of an allegation of the affidavit of defense claiming, a recoupment or set-off, and consequently there is no ruling of the court in regard to the competency of the evidence, but the transcript of evidence merely contains what was said between the court and counsel in arguing concerning such matter, there is in regard thereto nothing which can be reviewed on appeal.
    Loesch, Scoeield, Loesch & Bichards, for appellee; G-uerusey Orcutt, of counsel.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.