#### M. Friedlander, Plaintiff in Error, v. I. V. Edgerton, Defendant in Error.

Gen. No. 17,701.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Appeal and ebbob, § 866 * —sufficiency of abstract. An abstract which is little more than an index is wholly insufficient.

2. Appeal and ebbob, § 866*—what abstract must show. The abstract must show everything on which error is assigned for reversal of judgment.

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Oscab M. Tobbison, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1911.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 15, 1913.

Rehearing denied and opinion modified and refiled October 27, 1913.

Statement of the Case.

Action by M. Friedlander against I. V. Edgerton to recover the difference'between the value of a car of poultry and a check sent to defendants. From a judgment for defendant for $35.72 on a claim of set-off, plaintiff brings error.

Rosenthal & Kurz, for plaintiff in error.

Ela, Grover, March & Eckert, for defendant in error.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice Graves

delivered the opinion of the court.

*3923. Appeal and ebeoe, § 864*—necessity of abstract. Court of review will not go to the record, to find reasons for reversing or affirming the judgment.