
    GARDINER v. M’DOWELL’S ADMINISTRATOR.
    Appearance — defect of writ — waived—cured by declaring.
    A technical appearance is unnecesary in our practice.
    A party brought in on a writ appears, and if he fail then to object to the want of form in the writ, he waives the objection, and cannot after urge it on error.
    Error to the Common Pleas. Gardiner was sued on a note, payable to Wright, or order, endorsed to M’Dowell in his lifetime.
    The original writ was to answer in a plea of assumpsit, without stating any damages. The endorsement on the writ described the note declared on. The defendant appeared at the return of the writ, and was discharged on common bail, but no technical appear
      
      ■anee was entered. Thefe was no rule for a plea, but at the second term the defendant was called, defaulted, the damages assessed, And judgment rendered for the damages and costs.
    
      O. Parish and Bviayne assigned for error,
    the omission to claim damages in the writ, and the want of an endorsement from Wright.
    
      Starling and Gilbert contra.
   BY THE COURT.

The declaration says in words, the said note was endorsed to M’Dowell; that is sufficient after verdict. The want ■of an ad damnum in the writ, if of any importance, is cured. The endorsement on the writ shows what the suit is for; the defendant appeared in court and obtained his discharge on common bail, and should then have raised the objection to the form of the writ. ■Omitting to do so then, he waives the objection, and the plaintiff claiming damages in his declaration, supplies the defect. The ^omission to enter a technical appearance in our practice is of [763 no consequence.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

[Summons — how waived; Whitehead v. Post, 3 W. L. M. 195, :200; Kerns v. Roberts, 3 W. L. M. 604, 608.]  