Case ID: ill-app_173/html/0051-01.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

Dora Mindelsohn, Defendant in Error, v. The Modern Protective Association, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 16,802.
    Appeals and errors—abstract. Where, a plaintiff in error files an abstract of record, printed in smaller type than that required by the rule of the Appellate Court, the judgment will be affirmed.
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Max Eberhardt, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1910.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed October 3, 1912.
    Clyde O. Garmire and James N. Tilton, for plaintiff in error.
    David R. Levy and Douglas C. Gregg, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

' The judgment in this cause must be affirmed because of the failure of plaintiff in error to file a sufficient abstract of record. Buie 19 of Buies of Practice of the Appellate Court, First District, requires abstracts of record to be printed with “small pica type.” The abstract filed herein is printed with “long primer type,”' a smaller type than “small pica” type. The necessity for requiring abstracts and briefs to be printed with a type which can be read without eye strain is too obvious for comment. Therefore, the judgment is affirmed.

In addition, we may say that from an examination of the record herein we are of the opinion that even if plaintiff in error had complied with the above rule, the judgment should nevertheless be affirmed.

Affirmed.