
    Present : Ch. Justice, Judge Lynde, Cushing & Oliver.
    Ballard vers. McLean.
    Mistake in the Addition of Place will abate a Writ of Review.
    THIS was a Writ of Review. McLean was called, of Milton, but it was fully proved that he did not belong to Milton. The Question was, whether, this being a Writ of Review, which blues out of the Clerk’s Office, it should abate.
    
      1764.
    
      Mr. Dana, in Support of the Writ,
    urged that the three Years (the Time limited by Law for bringing a Writ of Review) would expire before they could bring another Writ; and said further that the Defendant was late of Milton, and was called in the original Writ, of Milton, which caused the Mistake; and said it would be a great Hardship upon the Plaintiff, when it was no Fault of his, for the Writ issued out of the Clerk’s Office, that he should be precluded from bringing his Review. Cited 2 Strange, 924, Cortisos vs. Munoz.
    
    
      Mr. Thacher, contra.
    
    Had he been named nuper, it might have done, but the Plaintiff has declared with Certainty. As to Writs of Review, they always have been and are subject to the same Rules with other Writs; and the Custom has ever been in this Court to show Writs of Review no more Favour than to other Writs.
   Justices Lynde, Cushing & Oliver

for abating it.()

Ch. Justice. Abstracted from the Custom, I see no Reason why it should abate. 
      
      (1) Where a writ of review was improvidently issued, without notice to the opposite party, the Court ordered a hearing, but resused to quash the writ, because, the three years having elapsed, the plaintiff would thereby lose his right to bring another petition. Clap v. Joslyn, 1 Mass. 133. And in Brewer v. Sibley, 13 Met. 177, it is intimated that in case of review “ it would be reasonable to reftrict the defence to the merits.”
     