Bennett v. Nicholson, 187 Ill. App. 538 (1914)
H. J. Bennett, Appellant, v. Fred Nicholson et al., Appellees.
Gen. No. 5,968.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Stark county; the John M. Niehaus, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1914.
Dismissed.
Opinion filed May 21, 1914.
Statement of the Case.
Action by H. J. Bennett against Fred Nicholson and others to recover on a promissory note. After a motion for a new trial had been denied the following entry was made: “It is hereby ordered by the court that judgment be and the same is hereby entered on the verdict. ’ ’ From such supposed judgment, plaintiff appeals.
*539Abstract of the Decision.
1. Judgment, § 2 * —when entry not a judgment. An entry which does not show for whom or against whom it is rendered is not a judgment.
2. Appeal and ebbob, § 334*—necessity for judgment. An appeal will not lie from an entry of the court which is not a judgment, for the reason that it does not show for whom or against whom it was rendered.
3. Appeal and ebbob, § 784*—sufficiency of dill of exceptions. On appeal from a judgment rendered after a motion for a new trial was denied, the bill of exceptions, though it embodies the motion for a new trial, is insufficient where it contains no recitation that any verdict was rendered or any motion for a new trial made, or any decision of such motion adverse to appellant.
4. Appeal and ebbob, § 814*—necessity that dill of exceptions contain instructions. A bill of exceptions should contain all the instructions on which rulings thereon are assigned as error.
5. Appeal and ebbob, § 768*—matter which should not de certified in record. It is not the province of the clerk to certify in the record what instructions were requested by the parties or what ruling the court made thereon.
A. P. Miller and Daugherty & Marsh, for appellant.
James H. Rennick and James H. Andrews, for appellees.