
    
      Coe Garratt and others v. Elisha C. Litchfield and others.
    An appeal in chancery will not he dismissed for the failure of the Register to cause a copy of the record to be transmitted to this Court within the time provided by the statute, if'such copy is aotually filed’before the motion to dismiss is made.
    IT or will it he dismissed for the failure on the part of the appellant to serve notioe thereof on oo-defendants, as required by Supreme Court Rule 14, when such failure is sufficiently excused.
    
      Decided July 21st.
    Appeal by two of Litchfield’s co - defendants from the Saginaw Circuit in Chancery.
    
      J G- Sutherland, for complainants,
    moved to dismiss the appeal, for the reason that the transcript of the record below was not made and transmitted to this Court within thirty-days after the appeal was perfected, as required by the statute. — (Comp. L. §3599. The transcript was now on file.
    
      Goulds & Uanchett, contra.
    
      
      T. M. Cooley, for defendant Litchfield,
    at the same time moved to dismiss for the failure of the appellants to serve notice of the appeal upon him, as required by Supreme Court Rule 14.
    
      Mr. Hanchett, contra,
    read an affidavit showing that the failure to give such notice was accidental — the notice having been actually prepared, and the solicitors supposing it had been served until notice of this motion was given.
   By the Court:

We have never dismissed an appeal in chancery for the failure to cause the return to be filed within the time specified, when the return was actually made and filed before the motion to dismiss was called up.

Motion denied.

The Court held, the failure to be sufficiently excused, and denied the motion.  