
    Black vs. The Chicago & North-Western Railway Company. Ford vs. The Same.
    The general rule in respect to notices is, that mere informalities do not vitiate them, so long as the informality does not mislead, and the notice gives the necessary information to the proper party.
    Where a notice of appeal to the circuit court from an appraisal of lands taken for railroad purposes (which notice was required to be served on the railroad company and also upon the clerk of the court), was served upon said company and afterwarks filed with the clerk, and he was made acquainted with its contents: Held, that although the notice to the clerk was informal, it was not error for the court to refuse to dismiss the appeal on that ground.
    APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Winnebago County.
    Lands of the plaintiffs having been occupied,for the defend-' ant’s railway, and awards made by commissioners under chap. 187, Laws of 1856, and chap 175, Laws of 1861, the plaintiffs appealed from these awards to the circuit court. See sec. 19 of said chap. 187, and sec. 2 of said chap. 175. The circuit court denied motions to dismiss the appeals; and from these orders the defendant appealed. The ground upon which the motions were based, is stated in the opinion of this court.
    
      S. B. Cotton, for appellant.
    
      W. B. Kennedy, for respondent.
   By the Court,

Paine, J.

In these two cases appeals were taken from the appraisal of the lands of the plaintiffs, taken for railroad purposes. And the question presented arose upon motions to dismiss those appeals because not properly taken. In the case of Neff against this company, 14 Wis., 370, we held,after some hesitation, chat under its charter an appeal might be taken by serving a notice on the company and on the clerk of the circuit court; and the- objection made here is that it was not served on the clerk. The mode of service was by filing with the clerk, in proper time, the notice of appeal which was served on the company. It was not addressed to the clerk, but was delivered to bim, and be was made acquainted with its contents. Tbe point of tbe objection is, that this was not serving a notice on tbe clerk, but was only leaving with, him a notice that had been served on somebody else. But this is criticising too acutely for tbe practical purposes of tbe law. Tbe general rule in respect to notices is, that mere informalities do not vitiate them, so long as they do not mislead, and tbe notice gives tbe necessary information to the proper party. And it would hardly be seriously contended that tbe clerk or anybody else could misunderstand the (object and intent of filing with bim a notice of tbe appeal served on tbe company.

The order appealed from in each case is affirmed, with costs.  