
    Decatur County v. Clements et al.
    
    1. Original notice: name of term. An original notice should name the term at which the defendant is required to appear.
    2. Practice: motion below. A judgment will not be reversed for an error which could have been corrected by the court below, when it doe3 not appear from the record that an application for such correction was made and refused by the court.
    
      Appeal from, Decatur District Court.
    
    Tuesday, June 13.
    •The defendants executed their joint and several notes to the school fund commissioner of Decatur county, for five hundred dollars; and the defendant Clements executed a mortgage to secure the payment of the note. .This suit was brought to foreclose the mortgage; judgment of foreclosure was entered by the District Court, and general execution was awarded against defendants Beck and Ellis, who alone were personally served. The further facts are stated in the opinion. The defendants, B.eck and Ellis, appeal.
    
      John W. Warner and Polk & Huhbell for the appellants.
    No appearance for the appellee.
   Cole, J.

This suit was brought since the Revision of 1860 took effect; and the notice served upon appellants required, them to appear “ on or before noon of the second day of the next regular term of the District Court of said county.” There was no appearance, and judgment was rendered by default. This notice was defective, and it was irregular for the court to render judgment by default thereon. The notice should have named the term at which the defendants were required to appear. Rev., § 2812; State Bank v. Van et al., 12 Iowa, 628.

But- this error is one which the District Court might have corrected on proper motion made therein. Section 3545 of Bevision provides that “ a judgment or order shall not be reversed for an error which can be corrected on motion in the inferior court, until such motion has been made there and overruled.” This section, in connection with sections 3149, 3150, 3449, 3500, &c., has been construed by this court, and that construction several times followed and approved, and we are still content therewith. Pigman v. Denny et al., 12 Iowa, 396; McKinley v. Betchel et al., 12 Id., 561; Downing v. Harmon, 12 Id., 535; Bethel v. Leay, 14 Id., 592; Barnes v. Hayick, 15 Id., 602 ; Leonard v. Hallem, 17 Id., 564. No such motion having been made below, the judgment must be

Affirmed.  