
    A. A. W. YOUNG vs. DANIEL YOUNG, jr.
    Ii is a good plea m abatement of a writ, that the plaintiff or demandant, who sues without a guardian, ornext friend, is an infant.
    But the writ may. in^uch a case, be amended, by inserting the name of a guardian, or next friend.
    This was a writ of entry. The tenant pleaded, in abatement of the writ, the infancy of the demandant, who sued ivithout a guardian or prochein amy.
    
    The demandant moved for leave to amend his writ, by inserting the name of a prochein amy.
    
    To this the tenant objected, and contended, that the writ was not amendable, in this respect, by any known rule of practice.
    
      Copp, for the demandant.
    
      Hobbs and Sawyer, for the tenant.
   By the court.

It is well settled, that it is a good plea in abatement of the writ, that the demandant or plaintiff, who sues without a guardian or next friend, is an infant. Chitty’s Pl. 436.—2 Saunders 117, f. note (1.)—1 Tidd’s Prae. 69.— 7 Johnson 373, Schemerhorn vs. Jenkins.—2 Saunders 212.-Comyn’s Digest, Pleader 2 C. 1.

But it is very clear, that the writ may be amended. 1 Cowen 33; Ex parte Scott.—2 Saunders 212, and notes.—1 Tidd’s Prac. 69—12.

Leave to amend granted.  