
    DANIEL LEMON against JOHN BISHOP.
    Where a plaintiff and defendant reside in the same town, a copy of a notice to take depositions left at the house of the defendant, with the defendant’s daughter, by the plaintiff, more than ten days before the day appointed for taking the depositions, is not a sufficient service of notice,
    Error to the Common Pleas of Union county.
    Upon the trial of this causé in the court below, the plaintiff offered in evidence a deposition, which the defendant objected to, on the ground that legal notice of the taking of it had not' been given to him.
    
      Daniel Lemon, the plaintiff having been sworn, said, he left a copy of the notice more than ten days before the taking of the deposition, at Bishop's house; he gave it to his daughter, who was about eighteen years of age. Bishop was not at home, and his wife was unwell; his daughter said he was at Weirichstown, about four miles from home; he did not see Bishop, after the notice was served, until after the deposition was taken; he did not call m the evening to see if Bishop got the notice. They live in the same town, about two.squares from each other; he, the plaintiff, left town the next morning, and did not return until after the deposition had been taken.
    The court did hot deem the notice sufficient, and overruled the evidence. The rule of court on the subject did not provide for the kind of service of notice which was necessary.
    
      Merrill, for plaintiff in error,
    cited Bauman Sf wife v. Zinn, et al. 3, Yeatesi 157. BujacY. Morgan, 3 Yeates, 258.
    
      Lashells, contra,
    cited Voris v. Smith 13, Serg. Sf Rawle,' 334.
   Judgment affirmed.  