
    Marion County v. Stanfield et al.
    
    A notice of appeal from tho-district to the supreme court, cannot be served, and the proof thereof made by affidavit, by the party appealing.
    The Code does not authorize such a mode of service of the notice of appeal.
    
      Appeal from the Marion District Court.
    
    Tuesday, June 7.
    Action on an official bond, in which judgment was rendered against the principal and his sureties. A notice of appeal was served on the county judge, by one of the appellants, who makes affidavit to the return. The appellee moved to dismiss the appeal, for the following reasons: 1. No notice of appeal was ever served upon the appellee, or upon the clerk of the district court; 2. The notice of appeal was served by R. S. ITanks, one of the defendants.
    
      J. E. Neal, for the motion.
    
      L. D. Ingersoll, contra.
    
   Wright, C. J.

An affidavit of one of the defendants and appellants, accompanies the notice of appeal to the clerk and appellee, to the effect that he served the same by reading, &c., on a day named. It is objected, and we think properly, that such notice cannot be served, and the proof thereof made by the party appealing. Appellants do not claim that such service would be good, independent of the Code. That it is not authorized by anything found therein, is evident, as we think, from the following sections: 1732, 2428, 1974, 2493 to 2499 inclusive.

Appeal dismissed.  