
    M’DERMOT VS. DEARNLEY.
    In a soire facias sur mortgage brought by the assignee of the mortgage, the Court on the trial permitted the name of the mortgagee to be added as a plaintiff, but refused a continuance of the case.
    Error to Common Pleas of Montgomery County. No. 368 January Term, 1885.
    Maria McDermot executed a mortgage to Ephraim C. Boorse. Boorse assigned to Dearnley and Schofield, who brought suit on the mortgage in the names of Isaac Dearnley and Uriah Schofield, assignees of Ephraim C. Boorse vs. John McDermot and Maria McDermot. The assignment was only witnessed by one person, and upon the trial the Court permitted plaintiff to amend so that the parties plaintiff were as follows : “Ephrahim C. Boorse to the use of Isaac Dearnley and Uriah Schofield.” Defendants then moved to continue the case till next term, but the Court refused the application, and the jury rendered a verdict for plaintiffs.
    Defendants then took this writ of error.
    
      George N. Corson, Esq. for plaintiffs in error
    cited Act May 28, 1715, 1 Sm. Laws 90; Act May 10, 1871, P. L. 265; Bitting vs. Mowry, 1 Miles 216.
    
      T. W. Bean, Esq. contra
    
    argued that the statute allowing amendments is to be liberally construed ; Steffy vs. Carpenter, 37 Pa. 41; Weidner vs. Matthews, 11 Pa. 340; Benner vs. Frey, 1 Binn. 369; Bailey vs. Musgrave, 2 S. & R. 219; Kaylor vs. Shaffner, 24 Pa. 489; Downey vs. Garard, 24 Pa. 52. The refusal of the Court to grant a continuance is not the subject of a writ of error; Mishler vs. Commonwealth, 62 Pa. 55; Heidelberg School District vs. Horst, 62 Pa. 301; Farmers’ and Mechanics’ Insurance Co. vs. Simmons, 30 Pa. 299; Maffit vs. Rynd, 69 Pa. 388.
   The Supreme Court affirmed the- judgment of the Common Pleas on May 11th, 1885, in the following opinion:

Per Curiam.

This amendment was no change in the form of the action. It «till remained a scire facias on a mortgage, and on the same mortgage recited in the writ. The use party remained the same .as before amendment made. A legal party was also added, but the mortgage recited in the writ showed. his name ought to be on the record to answer' the technical requirement of the law. We do not think this amendment is of the kind which makes it obligatory on the Court to continue the case to the next Court. Whether it should be continued rested in the sound discretion of the Court, which we will not review.

Judgment affirmed.  