
    Wilson vs. King and others.
    
    . After a trial has commenced and the evidence been closed, one plaintiff may be allowed to amend his writ and declaration by striking out the name of a co-plaintiff who has no interest in the subject matter in controversy.
    In this case the counsel for the plaintiffs below moved at the trial, after the evidence had been closed, to strike from the writ and declaration the name of Theresa M. King, one of the plaintiffs, because he had discovered that she had no interest in the suit, which the court permitted to be done, to which the defendant excepted, and on account of which this appeal in error is prosecuted.
    
      Henry A. Garrett, for the plaintiff in error.
    The court erred in permitting the amendment at this stage of the proceeding; this is a defect which proceeds from the party’s own negligence and. default. See 6 Dane’s Abridgment, 283.
    After the action has been commenced several terms,, and noted for trial several terms, the court will not allow the plaintiff to amend his declaration. See 2 Johnson’s Reports, 206, 207.
    
      John H. Dunlap, for the defendant in error.
   Green, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The court was right in permitting the amendment to be made. Such amendments have been often made and sanctioned by this court, as being authorized by the act of 1809, ch. 49, sec. 21. The judgment will therefore be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  