
    John B. Pickett et al. versus Asa King.
    The court will not permit a -writ of entry to be amended by striking eat the name of one of the demandants.
    This was a writ of entry. The demandants’ counsel moved for leave to strike out the names of two of the demandants, from the writ and declaration, they being tenants in common of the land demanded with other de-mandants. And in support of the motion, Goodall referred the court to 1 Pick. 224, Rehoboth and Sekonk v. Hunt ; 7 Mass. Rep. 291, Cokord v. Swan ⅜ ux.
    
    
      Goodall and Woodbury, for the demandants.
    
      Cushman and Bell, for the tenant.
   By the court.

We are of opinion that the motion of the demandants cannot be legally sustained. The cases to which we have been referred seem to show the practice to be in Massachusetts, to strike out the name of a party by way of amendment. But the practice is believed to be peculiar to that state. No authority is cited to warrant it in the cases which have been cited. In this state no such practice has ever prevailed.

Leave to amend refused, and demandants nonsuit.  