
    Cheever v. Lane.
    Insufficient service cannot have the effect of quashing the original notice, and dismissing a cause.
    At most, it can only affect the service itselfj and work a continuance.
    The fact of filing the petition after the time stated in the original notice, will not operate to dismiss the cause.
    
      Appeal from the Ghreene District Court.
    
    This is a very confused record, but shows substantially the following facts: On the 1st of August, 1855, plaintiff placed in the sheriff’s hands his original notice. This notice states that “ a petition is now on file,” and was served on one of tbe defendants, on the 15th of the same month. At the May term, 1856, of the District Court, defendant appeared, and moved to quash the notice, for the reason that no petition was on file at the time specified therein, and because there was no sufficient service thereof. The date of the filing of said petition is not shown, but it is admitted to have been August 3d, 1855. ' This motion was sustained, and the cause dismissed. The plaintiff appeals.
    
      Brown & Mwood, for the appellant.
    
      Barlow Granger, for the appellee.
   Weight, C. J.

"Without inquiring into the sufficiency of the service of notice, we have no hesitation in saying, that this cause was improperly dismissed. Insufficient service cannot have the effect of quashing the notice, and dismissing a cause. At most, it could only affect the service itself, and work a continuance. The fact of filing the petition after the time stated in the notice, would not operate to dismiss the cause. This same question was before this court, in the case of McCaffrey v. Guesford, 1 Iowa, 80, and we see no reason for disturbing the ruling there made.

Judgment reversed.  