
    James E. Tate, Plaintiff in Error, v. Minnie C. Roberts, Edward P. Roberts and James Corlett, Defendants in Error.
    Gen. No. 16,901.
    Appeals and errors—when ruling of chancellor presumed to be correct. On a writ of error to the Appellate Court for the review of a chancellor’s order sustaining a demurrer to a bill of review, such ruling will be presumed to be correct where the abstract of the record does not show anything as to the nature or character of such bill, or as to the grounds for the demurrer.
    Error to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Farlin I. Ball, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1910.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed October 3, 1912.
    Moses D. Brown, for plaintiff in error.
    Hutchins & Rippel, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

■ This is before us by writ of error for review of an order of the chancellor in the Superior Court sustaining a demurrer to what is called a bill of review, filed by the plaintiff in error.

Upon an examination of the abstract of record, we do not find anything from which we can determine the character, nature or contents of the document, a demurrer to which apparently was sustained. Not a line or word of the recitals of the document is given. The only reference to it are the words “bill of review,” and nothing appears as to the grounds of the demurrer. The alleged abstract of record is merely an index. (Hughes v. Humphreys, 102 Ill. App. 194.)

We must therefore presume that the ruling of the chancellor in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the bill was correct, and the decree is afirmed.

Affirmed.  