
    Toole vs. Davenport & Smith.
    1. Where suit was brought on a note for thirty-four dollars fora mu-le-r and the defense was a latent defect or want of soundness in the mule, known to the vendor and not to the vendee, and not communicated to the vendee, such defense will not operate to reduce the recovery-in the absence of proof going to show how much the defect reduced! the value of the mule, especially where the vendee had no express-warranty of soundness, and kept the mule nearly a year to make his crop without complaint, and took out an exemption from the ordinary for him.
    2. Where there is no service at all there is no suit, and there having been thus, for want of service, no suit in certiorari for more than three months, there is nothing- to be renew-ed within six months. 58 ffa.,147.
   Jackson, Justice.

[On December 28, 1»75, a case was tried before a justice ; on February 4, 1876, defendant sued out a writ of certiorari-, on April 14, it was presented to plaintiff’s attorney for an acknowledgment of service, which was refused; at the October term, 1877, on the motion of plaintiff in certioraA'i, the case was dismissed; in February, 1878, he renewed his petition; on the hearing the court overruled it, and he excepted. For the other facts, see the syllabus.]  