#### John O’Donnell and N. Carvell, copartners, Defendants in Error, v. O. P. Curran, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 21,779.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Appeal and ebbob, § 1674 * —when error in striking affidavit of merits from files waived. Whatever right a defendant may have *201to question the ruling of the trial court that an affidavit, of merits he stricken from the files is waived by the filing of an amended affidavit of merits.

*200Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles A. Williams, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 3, 1918.

Statement of the Case.

Action in debt by John O’Donnell and 3ST. Carvell, copartners, plaintiffs, against O. P. Curran, defendant, to recover the sum of $300 on a stay of execution bond. Prom a judgment for plaintiffs for $300 debt and for $142.50 damages and costs, and ordering that, upon payment of the damages, and costs, with interest thereon, the debt be discharged, defendant brings error.

Beckman, Cottrell & Phillips, for plaintiff in error.

No appearance for defendants in error.

*

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

*

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

Mr. Justice Thomson

delivered the opinion of the court.

*2012. Appeal and eerob, § 801 * —what must he preserved in hill of exceptions. The ruling of a trial court striking an amended affidavit of merits from the files cannot be reviewed unless the pleading and the ruling are preserved in a hill of exceptions.

3. Municipal Court oe Chicago, § 13*—non-necessity of formal written pleadings in action of fourth class. No formal written pleadings are required in an action of the fourth class in the Municipal Court of Chicago.

4. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 13*—when statement of claim is sufficient in action of fourth class. A statement of claim, in an action of the fourth class in the Municipal Court of Chicago, though technically defective, which advises the defendant of the plaintiff’s demand, as required by the Municipal Court Act, sec. 40 (J. & A. If- 3352), is sufficient when questioned for the first time in a court of review.