
    Independent District of Sheldon v. Apperle et al.
    
    Appeal: no notice on clerk: abstract not denied. Although appellant’s abstract stated that notice of the appeal had been served on the clerk of the trial court, appellees’ abstract, which was not controverted, and must therefore be taken as true, denied that such notice was served on the clerk. As such service is necessary to perfect the appeal (Code, sec. 3178) it follows that the cause must be dismissed.
    
      Appeal from Lyon District Court. — Hon. O. W. Wakefield, Judge.
    Filed, December 20, 1888.
    Action to recover on the official bond of D. W. Apperle as superintendent of schools for Sioux county, for an alleged failure to perform official duties. A demurrer to the petition was sustained. Plaintiff electing to stand on its pleading, judgment was entered against it for costs.
    
      Alfred Morton, for appellant.
    
      Pitts & Kessey, for appellees.
   Robinson, J.

— The plaintiff has filed in this court an abstract, which shows on its face that an appeal was duly taken by the serving of a notice thereof on the defendants and the clerk of the district court of Lyon county. The defendants have filed an additional abstract, which shows that no notice of appeal was ever served on the clerk, and a motion to dismiss the cftuse for want of such service. The additional abstract is not denied by plaintiff, and is corroborated by the transcript. “An appeal is taken by the service of a notice in writing on the adverse party, * * * and also upon the clerk of the court wherein' the proceedings were had, stating the appeal from the same. * * *” Code, sec. 3178. It appears that no appeal has been taken in this cause, and it is therefore

Dismissed.  