
    The Wm. Doerflinger Company, Defendant in Error, v. E. M. Seymour, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 18,761.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Appeal and ebbob, § 990
      
      —when error in ruling on motion for bond for costs not reviewable. Error in the action of the trial court on a motion to require plaintiff to file a bond for costs cannot be reviewed where no such motion appears in the record, nor the action of the court thereon.
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Feed C. Hill, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1912.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed March 9, 1914.
    Rehearing denied March 23, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action in the Municipal Court of Chicago by the Wm. Doerflinger Company against E. M. Seymour to recover the amount of a check alleged to have been collected and indorsed by defendant under a forged indorsement by a prior holder. It was claimed that the check made payable to a certain person by mistake, and that such person, knowing of the mistake, indorsed the check and that defendant subsequently collected it and negotiated it to others. From a judgment for plaintiff for $81.40, defendant bring’s error.
    E. M. Seymour, for plaintiff in error; Irving J. Res-nick, of counsel.
    Brundage, Wilkerson & Cassels, for defendant in error; Francis Adams, Jr. and Kenneth B. Hawkins, of counsel.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Appeal and ebbob, § 983 —when error in refusing to dismiss not reviewable. Error in refusing to dismiss a cause for failure to prove that plaintiff was a corporation is not reviewable where no motion therefor appears in the record.

3. Appeal and ebbob, § 956 —what not reviewable on striking of statement of facts. Where the statement of facts was stricken from the record, the denial of a motion to dismiss for want of proof that plaintiff was a corporation cannot he reviewed, since it would be impossible to conclude that the court ruled, incorrectly.  