
    Holcomb and another defendants in error ads. Hamilton.
    AFTER imparlance, but before judgment, I. S. one of the defendants died ; j udgment was then entered againft both and execution iffued againit the furvivor, without any fuggeilion on the record of the death of the other defendant; and on error coram vobis, a rule had been taken to fhew caufe why the record ihould not be amended by fuggeiiing the death of /. S.
    
    
      Whiting ihewed for caufe, that the application was too late, the proceedings having ceafed to be on paper; 2 Viner’s Abridg. title Amendment, letter II. pi. 17. Idem, page 313, letter G. pi. 2.
    
    
      Woods in fupport of the rule, read the a£t of this State, which authorifes the fuggeftion of the death of one defendant when the cauie of adtion furvives, and in anfwer to the objection in point of time, he cited 5 Burn, and Eajl. 577.
   Per Cur.

The cafe cited from Dnrnford and Eajl is in point. Courts have of late, fo long as the record is before them, gone into the practice of granting all amendments to which the party would have been entitled as of courfe, provided that it be of no prejudice to the other party.

Let the rule be made abfolute on payment of the coils of this motion and of the writ of error.  