William E. Hatterman, Appellant, v. Mary L. Tieman et al., Appellees.
Gen. No. 17,960.
(Not to foe reported in full.)
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Appeal and error, § 886—what abstract of record must include. Ruling on objections and exceptions to a master’s report cannot be considered when such objections and exceptions are not included in the abstract of record.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Ear-tin Q. Ball, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1911.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed October 9, 1913.
Statement of the Case.
Creditor’s bill filed by William. E. Hatterman against Mary L. Tieman and others to set aside a conveyance as fraudulent. From an order dismissing the bill for want of equity, plaintiff appeals.
William D. Johnson, for appellant.
Geeting, Potts & VanDellen, for appellees.
Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely
delivered the opinion of the court.
*252. Appeal and ebbob, § 789*—when hill of exceptions unnecessary. Bill of exceptions in a chancery cause is neither necessary nor proper, unless it he to preserve oral evidence introduced upon the hearing under the statute allowing it to be done.
3. Appeal and ebbob, § 855*—when certificate of evidence not necessary. Evidence need not be preserved by a certificate of the chancellor when there is a report of the master in chancery. The master’s report is a part of the record.