
    Museum of Fine Arts, Appellee, v. John B. Dicus, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 22,901.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Landlord and tenant, § 464
      
       — when tender of rent insufficient to prevent forfeiture of lease. A tender of a less amount than is actually due and owing by a tenant will not prevent a forfeiture of the lease for failure to pay rent, even though the tenant promises to pay the balance of the rent within a short time thereafter.
    2. Corporations — when affidavit of defense is insufficient to question corporation’s right to Tyring action. In an action of forcible entry and detainer by a foreign corporation as landlord to recover possession of premises from a tenant, held that an affidavit of defense which contained no averment that the plaintiff was organized for pecuniary profit, and did not negative the fact that plaintiff came within the exceptions of the act regulating the admission of foreign corporations for profit to do business in the State, Hurd’s Rev. St. ch. 32 (J. & A. K 2418 et seq.), was insufficient to question plaintiff’s right to bring the action.
    
      Appeal from the Municipal C.ourt of Chicago; the Hon. Edmund K. Jabecki, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1916.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed October 9, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action of forcible entry and detainer by the Museum of Fine Arts, a corporation, plaintiff, against John B. Dicus, defendant, for possession of certain premises in the City of Chicago. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Frank A. O’Donnell, for appellant.
    ¡Henry M. Hagan, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice McDonald

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Appeal and error, § 1088* — when error of court in excluding evidence may not be considered. Any error of the trial court in excluding evidence cannot be considered on appeal where the party complaining has failed to set it forth in his brief or to refer the court thereto in the abstract or transcript of the record.  