
    Ward v. Tinnen.
    A defendant who is primarily liable as the maker of a note cannot complain of errors affecting only his co-defendant-, and which have in no way operated to his prejudice.
    Error from Lamar. The defendant in error recovered judgment by default against the plaintiff in error, as maker, and one Shelton, an indorser of a promissory note. Ward alone prosecuted the writ of error, and sought to reverse the judgment on the ground that there was not legal service on his co-defendaut.
    
      Morrill %• DicJcson, for plaintiff in error.
   Wiieeder, J.

It is unnecessary to Inquire into the sufficiency of the service or the regularity of the judgment, as to Shelton. He has not appealed or otherwise complained of the judgment; and the plaintiff in error, who was the party primarily liable, as maker of the note, and against whom the judgment is regular and legal, cannot complain of errors affecting only his co-defendant and which have in no way operated to his prejudice. (Hendrick v. Cannon, 5 Tex. R., 248.)

Judgment affirmed.  