
    WILLIAM W. BOSTON et al. v. THOMAS J. HAYNES et als.
    Notice op Appeal.—The filing of a notice of appeal must precede or be contemporaneous with the service of the same.
    Becord in Supreme Court.—Affidavits will not be received in the Supreme Court to show that a notice of appeal was filed on a different day from that stated in the record.
    Correction op Becords op Courts.—The Supreme Court has no authority to correct the records in the lower Courts. Applications to correct errors in the records of District Courts, if any exist, must be made in the lower Courts.
    
      Appeal from the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. *
    Defendants recovered judgment in the Court below, and plaintiffs appealed. * ■
    The other facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
   By the Court, Sawyer, J.:

The notice of appeal appears by the record to have been served on the 12th, and filed on the 13th of September, and respondents move to dismiss on that ground. It has often been held that the statute requires the filing to precede, or be contemporaneous with the service. The appellant’s attorney seeks to obviate the objection by affidavit that the filing was, in fact, on the same day of the service; but this affidavit is met by a counter affidavit that the facts and the record correspond. If it were admissible, therefore, to contradict the record by affidavit, the appellant fails to satisfactorily show a mistake. But this Court must be governed by the record, as certified from the District Court. This Court has no authority to correct the records of the District Courts. If there is any error in the records of those Courts, the application to correct it must be made to the Court in the record of which the error exists. The record in this Court consists of a transcript of a record, or part of a record, of the Court of original-jurisdiction, and we must be governed by the record as we find it.

Appeal dismissed.  