
    Wm. G. Holmes in error vs. John Wright.
    
      July, 1841.
    Difference of venue in declaration and writ furnishes no ground for disturbing the judgment.
    In actions on promissory notes it is not necessary to award a writ of en-quiry to assess damages.
    Action of assumpsit on promissory note brought by Wright in the District Court for Muscatine county. Judgment for the plaintiff. The errors assigned are
    
      First. That the writ in the above case is entitled of and summons the defendant therein to appear in the District Court for Muscatine county and answer unto the plaintiff there, whilst the only declaration in the same ease is entitled of Johnson county and is sued in and for said county of Johnson.
    
      Second. That the said judgment being upon a promissory note and by default no writ of enquiry was awarded and no verdict rendered upon the same.
    Hastings for plaintiff.
    Lowe & Whicheb. for defendant.
    The case was submitted without argument.
   BY THE COtTIlT.

The first assignment of errors in- this case alleges that the writ summons the defendant to appear in the District Court of Muscatine county while the venue in the declaration is laid in Johnson county. This is a matter of form which might have been set right by special demurrer, but furnishes no ground for disturbing the judgment!

The other point, that the judgment being upon a promissory note by default no writ of enquiry was awarded and no verdict rendered upon the Same is sufficiently answered by referring to the statute and to the case of Davis vs. Morford et al. just decided.

The judgment below will therefore be affirmed.,  