#### Rose Lange, Defendant in Error, v. Sadie Stack and Anton J. Cermak, Bailiff, Plaintiffs in Error.

Gen. No. 21,583.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Appeal and error, § 966 * —when questions of law not preserved for review. Where, on appeal, the abstract of record discloses no objections taken to the testimony, no propositions submitted to be held as law, and no motion except at the close of the evidence to dismiss the case for want of a prima facie showing, all there is for review is the trial court’s action in overruling such motion.

2. Execution, § 127*—when evidence sufficient to sustain judgment for plaintiff. In an action for the trial of the right to property taken on execution, evidence showing that some of the articles of property in question were either gifts to the plaintiff or purchased by her with money given her by her relatives, and making prima facie proof of her ownership to the rest of the property, held sufficient to sustain a judgment for the plaintiff.

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John K. Prindiville, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed June 1, 1916.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Rose Lange, plaintiff, against Sadie Stack and Anton J. Cermak, as bailiff of the Municipal Court of Chicago, defendants, to try the right to property taken on execution. To review a judgment for plaintiff, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.

Feed A. Bangs, for plaintiffs in error; Richard H. Colby, of counsel.

Ludwig R. Dejmek and Joseph Burke, for defendant in error.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.