Opinion
JUNE TERM, 1785.
On the part of the defendant, it was said, that as the cause had been removed, by writ of error, this Court had no longer any jurisdiction over it; but this objection was not insisted upon. Doug. 130. 110. and Cowp. 841. 844. had been cited for the plaintiff on the former argument; but these were cases of ejectment; and it would overset the law, if other points were to be brought within the principle, by which ejectments are regulated. With respect to amendments by the statutes of Jeoffaille, they were only in matters of form; but the present motion went to matter of substance, and, therefore ought not to be granted. The bail, if the judgment is nonrecited in the Scire Facias, is intitled to relief by writ of error. Salk. 52. L. Ray. 1057. S.C. 6 Med. 263. 2 Stra. 1165. Gilb. 136.
For the plaintiff it was answered, that, independent of the statutes of Jeoffaines, this might be amended. It is a rule at common law to amend whenever there is anything to amend by. 5 Burr. 1730, was matter of substance, yet amended; because there the rest of the pleadings rectified the error. That, likewise, was a case after a writ of error had removed the record, and there had been an argument in the Exchequer. Here the error appears on the face of the writ, which recites the judgment to have been prior to the date of the recognizance; and in this point it is distinguishable from Salk. 52. L. Kaym. 1057.
SCIRE FACIAS against the bail, and the judgment removed by writ of error. Upon the issuing of a Certiorari to bring up the record, the plaintiffs moved to amend the Scire Facias by the record, substituting September 1782 for December 1781. The motion had been argued at the last term, and now came on for a second argument.
As it has not been made any part of the argument, that the power of the Court to amend, is not the same, as it was before the action was removed, we shall determine the question as we should have done, if the writ of error had not been brought. Upon the liberal principles of modern practice, therefore, and indeed, for the honour of common sense, we think it incumbent upon us to direct the Scire Facias to be amended by the record. Besides the cases in the books (particularly that in Barnes 6. Sweetland vs Beezely) there are some instances in our own Courts that authorize this determination. I remember in Scott vs Galbraith at Nisi Prius, in Lancaster, a verdict was given for the plaintiff in ejectment, for one half or the premises, and nothing was said respecting the other half. A motion was made in Bank to set aside this verdict; but it was allowed to be amended, by adding, "and for the residue they find for the defendant;" although, in that case, there was not anything to amend by, but merely what was implied in the verdict.
The rule made absolute.