
    Wainwright and Others v. Harper.
    November, 1831.
    Judgments by Default — Errors in Proceedings — Jeo-fails. — In cases of judgments by default, the statute of jeofails does not apply to cure errors and defects in tbe proceedings.
    Same — Variance between Writ and Declaration. — In such cases, the writ is part of the record; and writ being in assumpsit and declaration in covenant, the variance is fatal.
    Upon a supersedeas to a judgment recovered in the circuit court of Dinwiddie by Harper the defendant in error, against the plaintiffs in error, Wainwright, Allgood and Grammer, it appeared that the writ was in assumpsit, and *the declaration in covenant; and the judgment was by default, for want of appearance.
    Allison, for plaintiffs in error.
    In cases of judgments by default for want of appearance, the writ, and the indorsement on it, are necessarily part of the record; Na-denbush v. Dane, 4 Rand. 413. It is now settled, that the statute of jeofails does not apply to cases of judgment by default; Payne v. Britton, 6 Rand. 102. The variance between the writ and the declaration in this case, is fatal; Ming & al. v. Gwat-kin, Id. SSI.
    
      
       Judgments. — See monographic note on “Judgments” appended to Smith v. Charlton, 7 Gratt. 425.
    
    
      
       Pleading — Variance between Writ and Declaration. —In Long v. Campbell, 37 W. Va. 669, 17 S. E. Hep. 198, itis said: “In Ming v. Gwatkin, 6 Rand. (Va.) 551, a variance between writ and declaration as to initial of middle name was held fatal. The case is doubtful. Just the contrary was held in Dabneys v. Knapp, 2 Gratt. 355, as to difference in names of Samuel P. and Samuel B. Christian. The Ming Case was cited, but not followed. Besides, the Ming Case was under a statute which did not cure a defect in judgment by default. Hatcher v. Lewis, 4 Rand. (Va.) 152; Wainwrialit v. Saner, 3 Leiah 270.
    
   PER CURIAM.

The judgment must be reversed.  