#### Geo. M. Chamberlin v. Eugene Cary.

1. Appellate Court Practice-— What Abstracts Should Show.— The Appellate Court will not consider a case upon its merits where the abstract is a mere index and gives no information from which the court can determine what the issue involved is, but will affirm the judgment.

Assumpsit, on- two promissory notes. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Charles G. Neely, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the October term, 1896.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed December 28, 1896.

Charles B. Stafford, attorney for appellant.

Ira W. & C. C. Buell, attorneys for appellee.

Mr. Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We are told by the briefs filed in this cause, that the con*543troversy is entirely as to certain pleadings filed in an action of assumpsit.

The abstract here filed is as follows:

> “ page. The transcript in this case shows the following:

> 3-7 1. Declaration filed January 31, 1896. -

> 11 2. Summons issued January 31, 1896.

> 12 3. Return on summons February 7, 1896.

> 12-14 4. Plea and affidavit of defendant filed February 17, 1896.

> 15-16 5. Replication of plaintiff filed February 24, 1896.

> 16 6. Rule on defendant to rejoin February 25, 1896.

> 17 7. Demurrer on replication filed March 3,1896.

> 18 8. Ruling of the court sustaining demurrer, carrying back to plea and requiring defendant to plead over, entered March 19, 1896.

> 19-20 9. Plea and affidavit of defendant filed March 24, 1896.

> 21 10. Motion of plaintiff filed March 31, 1896.

> 21-22 11. Judgment on motion rendered March 31, 1896.

> 33-24-25 12. Bill of exceptions filed April 28, 1896.

> 25 13. Bond filed April 16, 1896.”

Such an abstract gives us no information from which we can determine what the issue involved is.

It is not an abstract but a mere index.

For want of a proper abstract, the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.