
    Rogers, assignee, etc., appellant, v. Schmersahl.
    
      Admission of service — mistake of date.
    
    
      An admission of service of notice of the entry of a judgment, although prima facie correct as to its date, is by no means conclusive. The presumption arising from it may he overcome by better evidence, showing that the service was actually made one day later than the date of the admission.
    Appeal from an order of the special term dismissing an appeal from a judgment in favor of defendant, upon the ground that the notice was not served in time. Plaintiff’s attorney admitted service of the notice of judgment to have been made on the 17th of December, 1872, but showed satisfactory evidence that such notice was actually received on the 18th of that month. The notice of appeal was served January 17, when defendant’s attorney refused to receive it, upon the ground that it was too late.
    
      R. H. Underhill, for appellant.
    
      William B. 'Aillcen & Joseph M. Dixon, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

(First department.)

The opinion is brief, and contains only the proposition contained in the head-note.

Order reversed.  