#### I. M. Weingarden, Plaintiff in Error, v. Louis Weinberg and Isadore Weinberg, Defendants in Error.

Gen. No. 22,728.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Apheai and erboe, § 854 * —what does not constitute a certificate of evidence. A document purporting to be a certificate of *229evidence is insufficient to constitute a certificate of evidence where it is not stated anywhere in it or in the certificate of the trial judge tnereto that it contains all the evidence in the case.

*228Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Edmund K. Jabecki, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed January 15, 1917.

Statement of the Case.

Action by I. M. Weingarden, plaintiff, against Louis Weinberg and Isadore Weinberg, defendants, to recover for breach of a contract whereby defendants agreed to receive plaintiff’s show for a certain period at a stipulated price. From a judgment finding the issues for the defendants,' on a trial before the court without a jury, plaintiff brings error.

S. L. and Fred Lowenthal, for plaintiff in error.

Adolph Marks, for defendants in error.

*

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

*

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

Mr. Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court.

*2292. Municipal Coubt of Chicago, § 26 * —how facts in a case of first class may he preserved for review. The Practice Act, sec. 81 (J. & A. If 8618), providing for preserving of facts in a cause for review by a bill of exceptions, stenographic report and certificate of evidence, governs first-class cases in the Municipal Court.

3. Municipal Coubt of Chicago § 29 * —tphen presumed that judgment is sustained hy evidence. Without a bill of exceptions, certificate of evidence or stenographic report certifying that it contains all of the evidence heard upon the trial of a first-class case in the Municipal Court, unless such record is a prcecipe record, a court of review will presume that the judgment is sustained by the evidence heard upon the trial, and such judgment will not be disturbed upon review for errors of fact.