
    James Welch, for M‘Donald and Welch and John Welch, plaintiffs in error against James Vanbebber and William Chambers.
    Recognizance of bail in error, amended, after judgment affirmed.
    Mr. Baldwin, for the defendants in error, moved the court, to amend the recognizance of bail taken before Mr. Justice Brackenridge, by striking out of the same, the words “the “ commonwealth of Pennsylvania,” and inserting in lieu thereof “James Vanbebber and William Chambers,” and also adding the words “and John Welch,”
    
      Referred to in 6 S. & R. 552 and 12 Pa. 217.
    The recognizance had been given to the commonwealth, instead of the plaintiffs below; and the name of John Welch, against whom the judgment had been affirmed in this court, was wholly omitted.
    The motion is founded on principles of justice, as well as authority. The judge indorsed on the writ of error, that bail had been taken, which was a supersedeas to the proceedings below. His error ought not to affect the suitors. John Welch subscribed the recognizance, but his name is omitted in the bod)1' of it. He has produced the delay, but shall not be permitted to avail himself of the incorrectness of his own acts. I Massa. T. R. 233.
    Courts of justice are now very liberal in allowing amendments for the furtherance of justice, x Bac. 333. Bail (new edit.) 1 Com. Dig. 445. Amemdment A. A judgment may be amended, unless injustice will be done thereby. 6 Term Rep. x. A scire facias against bail in error, amended. 1 Bos. and Pull. 275. Trespass and false imprisonment against two, one only found not guilty, a writ of error in the names of both, amended. Cowp. 425. A scire facias on a judgment amended, before plea pleaded 2 Ld. Raym. 1057. Bail piece amended, even after a suit by scire facias. 1 Barnes 4. Recognizance of bail amended. Ib. 59. Scire facias amended. 1 Dali. 132-4. The court have all the record before them, to amend the error, which has been committed by the defendant below.
    Mr. Campbell made a slight opposition to the motion ; insisting only, that the application should have been made before the affirmance of the judgment.
   * Sedper Curiam.

At most it is but a clerical mistake, „ , and here we have something certain to amend by. It is L * possible, that the recognizance in the name of the commonwealth, might be good, under the authority of Respublica v. Lacarze et al., (2 Dali. 118, Addison 59,) though certainly it is not formal.

Motion granted..  