The facts are somewhat similar to those involved in People’s Savings & Trust Co. of Pittsburgh v. Rayl, ante, p. 776, 265 Pac. 703. In this ease, however, the only question is as to the sufficiency of an undertaking on appeal filed upon the day after notice *782 of appeal was mailed to counsel for respondent. It was a proper case for service by mail; but respondent relies upon the fact that the transcript shows service of notice only by a written acceptance of date February 9, 1927; whereas, the undertaking was filed February 8, 1927. The affidavit on behalf of appellant, filed in this court upon the motion to dismiss, and which was undenied, shows that the notice was properly mailed to counsel for respondent on February 7, 1927.

I recommend that this motion be denied on authority of People’s Savings & Trust Co. of Pittsburgh v. Rayl, ante, p. 776, 265 Pac. 703.

The foregoing is approved as the opinion of the court and the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.