
    State, use of WALKER vs. WALKER.
    The prothonotary directed to correct a mistake in calculating the amount of a judd ment ordered to be ascertained by him, even after execution issued and returned.
    Scire facias on a recognizance in the Orphans’ Court on the ac ceptance of the intestate lands of Henry Walker. Judgment by cor fession; amount to be ascertained by the prothonotary; stay of exl ecution three months. March 31, 1842. The prothonotary asceil tuined the amount to be $394 48; execution issued for that amount, returnable to May term, 1842, and the sherifflevied the money.
    At the may term Rodney, for the plaintiff, moved the court for leave to correct a mistake of the prothonotary in ascertaining the amount of the judgment, he having allowed the plaintiff, as one of the heirs of Henry Walker, deceased, one-fifth of the valuation; whereas, he was entitled to one-fourth.
    
      Rodney, for the motion.
    
      Rogers, jr., contra.
   The Court

laid a rule to show cause why the proceedings subse-uent to the judgment should not ba vacated, and an order made on he prothonotary to correct this mistake, and ascertain the true mount of the judgment according to the recognizance, and the in-:erest of the plaintiff in the same.

The matter came up again at the November term, and it appear-ng to the court that the prothonotary had made a mistake in ascer-aining the amount of this judgment, by calculating one-fifth instead f one-fourth of the valuation money, the rule was made absolute. See 19 Johns. Rep. 244.)  