Case ID: cole-cas_1/html/0059-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Suydam vs. M'Coon.
    
      EjeBment. T N this caufe the plaintiff, who claim-A ed under a íheriff’s iale, had been non-fuited on the trial, for a variance between the record produced in evidence, and the.writ of ven-ditioni exponas, and at January term, 1797, had procured the non-fuit to be fet a fide 011 the payment of cofts, and had moved for and obtained leave to amend the writ by ftriting out the words twenty eighth, and inferting the word twentieth.
    
    Having been non-fuited a fecond time for a like variance between the record and the fame writ,
    
      Evertfon now moved for leave to amend again, by finking out the words “ lafl pajl” and inferting the figures 1790, and cited Thomas Jones 41.
    
      C. I. Bogert obje£led that it was now too late.
   Per Curiam.

Thefe errors are to be coniidered as the mifprifion of the clerk. On the authority of Jones and of the former decifion in this Court, Let the amendment be made.