
    M’Michael and Duane, against Knapp, and Bargy.
    UTICA,
    August, 1827.
    Where one. Reted in pa°t¡ a second must and^he6 pr¿ oeedii^s under omission to do, so is amendable.
    The plaintiffs had issued and caused to be returnee), a fa fa- against the defendants, on which part of the judgment was collected. Afterwards they issued a second fi. fa- without reciting the former, or the proceedings upon The second was for the whole, amount of the ju§gment; but was indorsed for the balance due.
    
      M. Hoffman,
    
    moved to. set the second fi. fa. aside for irregularity.
    
      *S. Stevens, contra,
    moved to amend, if the court should be of opinion that the proceeding was irregular.
   Ouria.

In strictness, the second execution should have recited the first, and the proceedings under it. But the plaintiffs may amend on payment of costs.

Buie accordingly. 
      
      
         Vid. Oviat v. Vyner (1 Salk. 318.) Tid. Pr. 934, S. P.
     