
    Sickler v. Overton.
    
      Venditioni exponas amendable by the prscipe, by inserting the name of one of the defendants during the trial of an ejectment under the sheriff's deed; and a sale under such a writ passes the title.
    Error from the Common Pleas of Bradford county. •
    
      July 6. Overton brought ejectment against Edmund Siclder and others; and on the trial, before Conyngham, President J., gave in evidence the record of a judgment against the defendant and others; a fi. fa. issued, and returned “levied,” on the land in question; also a venditioni under this judgment, reciting the fi. fa. as issued against the defendants, omitting however the name of Edmund Sickler; advertisements, a sale, and sherifFs deed thereon, with the same omission; and proved that Edmund was present at the sale.
    During the trial, the court allowed the venditioni to be amended by the prsecipe, and the name of Edmund Sickler to be inserted.
    Plis honour instructed the jury, that without regard to this amendment, which could not be considered as it was made during the trial, the plaintiff was entitled to recover.
    
      Elwell, for plaintiff in error,
    contended, that the sheriff’s deed could not pass the title of a man not named therein.
    
      Overton, contrà,
    cited Thompsons. Philips, 1 Bald. 247; Carpenter v. Cameron, 7 Watts, 51; Cluggage v. Duncan, 1 Serg. &Rawle, 111; Feger v. Keefer, 6 Watts, 297; Rodgers v. Gibson, 4 Yeates, 111.
    
      July 18.
   Per Curiam.

The writ was undoubtedly amendable by the prEecipe; and we treat a right to amend as an equivalent for actual amendment. But, right or wrong, the amendment had actually taken place at the time of the trial; and we cannot inquire into its propriety. That it was made pending the present action, cannot restrict its effect ; and there is therefore no semblance of error on the record.

Judgment affirmed.  