
    Mitchell v. Laub.
    1. Practice in Supreme Court: certificate of evidence without date. To authorize a trial de novo in this court, the judge of the court below must have certified the evidence at the trial term, or during the following vacation, under Code, § 2742, or within the six months allowed for appeal, under chapter 35, section 1, Laws of 1882; and when the abstract shows the certificate of the judge, which is without date or other indication as to when it was executed, and the appellant does not aver that it was executed within the time‘prescribed by law, a trial de novo cannot be had in this court.
    
      Appeal from Cra/wford District Cou/rt.
    
    Wednesday, June 14.
    Action in chancery to reform and enforce the specific performance of a contract executed by defendant for the purchase of an interest in a patent right for a brick machine, and an interest in the business of manufacturing and selling brick, prosecuted by the parties jointly. The answer, which is made a cross-bill, pleads that the contract was procured by fraud, and asks that it may be set aside and declared void. Plaintiff’s petition was dismissed and the contract was canceled by the decree of the court. Plaintiff appeals.
    
      E. K. Burch, and James <& Aylesworth, for appellant.
    
      Conner dc Shaw and Clinton, Han't & Brewer, for appellee.
   Beck, J.

The orignal abstract shows that the decree from which the appeal was taken was rendered April 16th, 1881, and that the clerk of the court on the 23d of August following certified to the evidence. An additional abstract after-wards filed shows a' certificate to the evidence signed by the judge, but it is without date and it is in no manner shown when it was signed, nor is the date of its execution averred by the appellant to have been within the time prescribed by law. To authorize a trial of this action de novo here, the judge of the court below must have certified the evidence under chapter 35, Acts Nineteenth General Assembly, section 1, within the six months allowed for appeal, or if this statute is not applicable to the case, at the term of the trial or during the vacation following, under Code, § 2742. Cornell v. Cornell, 54 Iowa, 366.

The certificate fails to show compliance with either of these requirements. It becomes unimportant to inquire which is applicable to this action. We cannot try the case anew. No errors are assigned, if the case should be found to be in a condition to be tried thereon. It cannot, therefore, be tried in this court. The judgment of the District Court must be.

Affirmed.  