
    The Unknown Heirs of Robert Bowles, deceased, plaintiff in error, v. Rudolphus Rouse, adm’r, &c. defendant in error.
    
      Error to Peoria.
    
    A writ of error must be prosecuted by a natural or artificial person, against whom a judgment for costs can be rendered, should the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.
    In this case, a motion was made by the counsel for the defendant in error to quash the writ of error, first, because the writ would not lie, and second, because it was prosecuted in the name, of unknown persons.
    A. Williams, and J. Butterfield, for the defendant in error,
    to support their motion relied upon the following authorities: Groenwelt v. Burwell, 1 Salk. 144; 2 Tidd’s Pr. 1134; Rev. Stat. 559, § 109; Watson v. May, 8 Ala. 177.
    
      O. H. Browning & N. Bushnell, for the plaintiffs in error,
    resisted the motion and cited Rev. Stat. 143, ,§ 7; Ibid. 420, §§ 47, 49-51, 53-55; Bowers v. Green, 1 Scam. 43; Sloo v. The State Bants, Ib. 440; Greenup v. Porter, 2 do. 417;. Rev. Stat. 559, § 109; Bromagham v. Clapp, 6 Cowen, 611; S. C. 8 do. 746; S. C. 9 do. 304, 530.
   Per Curiam.

It is necessary that a person, either natural or articial, should prosecute a writ of error. There must be some definite person as plaintiff in error, against whom a judgment may be given.for costs in case the judgment b.elow should be affirmed. Leave is, however, given to amend the writ of error, whifch, if not done within ten days, the writ of error will be dismissed.

The motion to dismiss because a writ of error will not lie, is overruled.

Motion overruled. 
      
       On the decision of this motion, the counsel, for the plaintiffs entered the appearance of Bobert L. Catherwood and Ellen Catherwood, his wife, as plaintiffs in this case.-
     