
    E. H. Sears and others against Powell.
    
      May 28th.
    
    
      A motion by the plaintiff to have his name struck out of the bill, be-' cause it was inserted without his knowledge or consent, is too late, after publication passed, and when the plaintiff knew that his name was used, immediately after the bill was filed, and suffered more than a year to elapse before he made his application.
    THE cause was at issue, and publication had passed. A motion was now made, on the part of one of the plaintiffs, to have his name struck out of the bill, on the ground, that it had been inserted without his knowledge or consent.
    
      Selden and While, in support of the motion.
    
      D. Ruggles, contra.
    He read an affidavit, stating, that the other plaintiffs were insolvent, and that the plaintiff, who now seeks to have his name struck out of the bill, applied to the solicitor of the defendant for his consent, more than a year since, and the solicitor refused to give his consent; and that the plaintiff knew that his name was used, immediately after the bill was filed. The counsel ci- * ted Titterton v. Osborne, Dickens’ Rep. 350.
   The Chancellor.

The motion must be denied. The delay was fatal to the plaintiff’s application. If he has been injured by the use of his name, he must have his resort to the solicitor, who has made use of it, for his indemnity.

Motion denied.  