
    Foley v. Connelly.
    1. Aitibavit cut mailing petition and notice. It is not sufficient in an affidavit, of service by publication and mailing, to show that copies of the petition and notice were directed to the defendant at a particular post office. It must show further that they were sent to “his usual place of residence."
    
      Appeal from the Jackson District Court.
    
    Thursday, October 13.
    
      IN equity. The respondent was not personally served, and the decree was entered by default. An affidavit was filed to the effect that a sealed envelope, containing true copies of the petition and notice, was deposited in the post office at Dubuque, directed to “ Thomas Connelly, Sacramento City, California.” The postage was prepaid and the envelope deposited January 15, 1857. The decree was rendered July 17, 1857. Respondent appeals.
    
      Wilson, Tilley &¡ Doud, for the appellants
    
      Smith, McKinley § Poor, for the appellees.
   WRIGHT, C. J.

The affidavit should have stated that copies of the petition and notice Avere directed to the respondent “ at his usual place of residence ” It is not sufficient to prove that they were sent to a particular post office, without showing that this office Avas.at such place of residence of respondent. Code, sec. 1826, Carr v. Kopp, 3 Iowa 80.

Eor this error the cause must be reversed and remanded.  