
    Quillan v. Windsor.
    To give the district court jurisdiction on appeal from a justice of the peace, it must be shown, either that the appellee had the notice required by the statute, or that he made a voluntary appearance in the district court.
    
      Appeal from the Lee District Court.
    
    Tuesday, June 22.
    Trial and judgment before a justice, October 16th, 1856, from which defendant appealed to the district court, on the 26th of the same month. When the transcript, and papers were filed with the clerk of the court below, is not shown,' nor does it appear that they ever were filed. There is nothing to show that the plaintiff ever had notice of the appeal, nor that he appeared in the district court. The entry of judgment is as follows: “ This cause now came on to be heard by the court, and1 the court having heard and inspected the case, finds for the defendant, and reverses the judgment of the court below,” &c. The plaintiff appeals.
    
      J. M. Beck, for the appellant,
    IP. E. Moss, for the appellee.
   "Wright, C. J.

— It is true, as claimed by the appellee, that the presumption is in favor of the correctness of the judgment below. But if the district court had no jurisdiction of the person of plaintiff, then all that was done was irregular, and the doctrine of presumption does not obtain. By such proceedings he would not be bound. To give this jurisdiction, it should be shown, either that he had notice of the appeal, as provided for in sections 2341-2 of the Code, or that he made a voluntary appearance. Nothing of this kind appears. The judgment is, therefore, erroneous, and must be reversed. McCormick v. Bishop, 3 G. Greene, 99.  