Church against The United Insurance Company

Church against The United Insurance Company. Misprision of clerk in drawing up a rule amended on application, and the plaintiff noticing to the adverse party the error, may nave the same benefit as if the rule had been right. The plaintiff had obtained, in last January term; an order of court for the verdict recovered in this cause to stand, and judgment to be given accordingly, unless the defendant should, fourteen days before the next “ sittings" in Hew York, give notice to the plaintiff that a commission issued in the suit had been returned, in which case there should be a new trial, and the plaintiff at liberty to amend, &c. The clerk had drawn up the rule before the next [*8] “ circuit.” The plaintiff had given ^immediate notice of the mistake to the defendant's attorney, and that he should be prepared to try the cause at the sittings. The defendant not having noticed the return of the commission, Hamilton moved that the rule be amended to “sittings,” and be made absolute for judgment: See post, Seaman v. Drake, 9. [MAJORITY] Motion granted.