delivered the opinion of the court.
*1263. Replevin, § 123 * — when evidence sufficient to sustain finding for plaintiff. Evidence, in an action of replevin, examined and held sufficient to support a finding for plaintiff.
E. F. McDonald & Co. v. Drexel Motor Livery Co., 207 Ill. App. 125 (1917)
July 2, 1917
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 23,046
207 Ill. App. 125
E. F. McDonald & Company, Appellee, v. Drexel Motor Livery Company et al. On Appeal of W. J. Kalus.
Gen. No. 23,046.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Appeal and error, § 864 * — when record not searched for matters not in abstract. The abstract is the pleading of the party, and the record will not be searched for any matter not appearing in the abstract.
'2. Appeal and error, § 1284* — when presumed that trial court decided that notes and mortgage were sufficient to give plaintiff in replevin possession. In an action of replevin, where plaintiff claims the right of possession by virtue of the “insecurity clause” in a chattel mortgage given by one of the defendants upon the property taken under the writ, and neither the mortgage nor the notes secured by it appear in the record, it will he assumed that the trial *126court, which had the notes and mortgage before it, decided that they were sufficient to give plaintiff possession under the “insecurity clause.”
*125Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John Stelk, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1917.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed July 2, 1917.
Rehearing denied July 16, 1917.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).
Statement of the Case.
Action of replevin by E. F. McDonald & Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against the Drexel Motor Livery Company, a corporation, W. J. Kalus and John Doe, defendants. From a judgment finding the right to the replevined property in the plaintiff, defendant Kalus appeals.
William H. Fish, for appellants.
Ninde, Potter & Rigby, for appellee.