
    Hickman v. Chambers.
    1. Variance, where the notice informed the defendants that plaintiff claimed judgment against them for a sum due on a promissory note, and the foreclosure of a mortgage executed by them, and the petition prayed for a judgment on a note executed by one, and a foreclosure against both; held, that the variance between the notice and petition did not authorize the court to quash the notice.
    
      Appeal from Mahaska District Court.
    
    Wednesday, April 4.
    The plaintiff, by ber petition, claimed of “the defendants, Mathew Chambers and Mary Chambers, a judgment of the foreclosure of a mortgage,” and “judgment against Mathew Chambers, for the sum of $550 on a promissory note executed by him to plaintiff.” The original notice notified the defendants that plaintiff claimed of them judgment on a note and a foreclosure of the mortgage, “given to secure the payment of the same.” Defendants moved to quash the notice, because it did “nob correspond with the petition.” The overruling of this motion by the court is assigned as error by the defendants, who appeal.
    
      Wm. Loughridge for the appellant.
    
      Seevers, Williams Seevers and Crookham Fisher for the appellees.
   Lowe, C. J.

A motion in this case was made to quash the original notice, upon the ground that there was a variance between it and the petition. The motion was very properly overruled. This is the only error relied upon in this court. No such variance exists, and the judgment below is affirmed with one per cent damages.

Judgment affirmed.  