
    Philip McGuire vs. William Davis.
    A writ, in a civil action pending before a justice of the peace, which directs the officer “to attach the goods or estate of [blank] to the value of twenty dollars, and for want thereof to take the body of the said W. D.,” may be amended, by leave of the justice, by inserting th'e defendant’s name in the blank space.
    This was an action of assumpsit originally commenced before a justice of the peace. The writ required the officer “ to attach the goods or estate of [blank] to the value of twenty dollars, and for want thereof to take the body of the said William Davis,” &c., the name of the defendant being omitted where the blank is indicated. The officer returned on the writ, that he had attached the property of the within named defendant.
    Upon the return day of the writ, the defendant appeared before the justice only for the purpose of objecting to his jurisdiction, and submitted a written motion that the action should be dismissed, on the ground, that the writ had not been served on the defendant according to the precept thereof. The justice overruled the motion, and permitted the plaintiff to amend his writ, by inserting in the blank therein the name of William Davis. The trial then proceeded, and the justice rendered judgment against the defendant, who appealed to the court of common pleas. At the first term of that court, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the action, for want of jurisdiction in the justice. But the presiding judge (Bigelow, J.) being of opinion that the justice had authority to allow the amendment, overruled the motion, and the defendant excepted.
    
      T. G. Coffin, for the defendant.
    
      E. Ward, for the plaintiff.
   By the Court.

We perceive no reason why a justice of the peace may not allow an amendment, to correct an irregularity in process, as well as any other court. The provisions of law are very broad. “ No process, &c., shall be abated, quashed, &e., for any circumstantial errors or mistakes, when the person and case may be rightly understood by the court.” Rev. Sts, c. 100, § 21. Bell v. Austin, 13 Pick. 90. “ The court in which any civil action is pending, at any time before judgment therein, may allow amendments either in form or substance, of any process,” &c. § 22. This extends to all courts.

The person and case may be rightly understood, when the defendant is rightly summoned according to law, sc that the court has jurisdiction of the subject and of the persons of the parties. Here the defendant was sufficiently designated in the writ, and was summoned to appear at the time and place fixed. Exceptions overruled  