¶1The offense is unlawful possession of a dangerous drug; the punishment, sixty days in jail.
¶2The recognizance appearing in the record is shown to have been entered into by the appellant and only one surety. Art. 831, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., which prescribes the form of a misdemeanor recognizance on appeal, provides that the recognizance be entered into by the defendant and two sureties.
¶3The recognizance, not being in substantial compliance with the statute, is in* sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this court. Price v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 312, 299 S.W.2d 141; Wilkins v. State, 130 Tex.Cr.R. 36, 91 S.W.2d 354.
¶4The appeal is dismissed.
¶5Opinion approved by the court.
¶6ON MOTION TO RE-INSTATE THE APPEAL
¶7Proper appeal bond having been given and approved, the appeal is re-instated.
¶8Trial was before the court on a plea of not guilty.
¶9The evidence shows that police officers, having obtained a search warrant, went to appellant’s room in the Sands Motel to execute the warrant..
¶10The appellant drove up soon after the officers arrived and some of the officers went to the car, handed him the search warrant and searched the automobile.
¶11In the glove compartment the officers found fourteen capsules which were shown by the evidence to contain barbiturates.
¶12The fruits of the search were admitted in evidence over the objection that the search was illegal because (1) the affidavit supporting the search warrant was legally insufficient, and (2) the search warrant did not authorize search of the car.
¶13The affidavit for the search warrant is in all material respects the same as that held sufficient by this Court to show probable cause in Giacona v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 101, 335 S.W.2d 837; Etchieson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 372 S.W.2d 690, and Aguillar v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 629, 362 S.W.2d 111.
¶14This Court must yield, however, to the majority holding of the Supreme Court of the United States in Aguilar v. Texas, *942378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723, decided June 15, 1964, and in Etchieson v. Texas, 378 U.S. 589, 84 S.Ct. 1932, 12 L.Ed.2d 1041, decided June 22, 1964.
¶15These decisions of the Supreme Court control the disposition of this appeal and require reversal of the conviction.
¶16The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.