case king against king original writ not amendable unless in a mere misprision  motion to amend a original and declaration the action be bring by the  plaintiff as administrator whereas he and another be executor and the question  be whether this can be amend for the amendment the case cite be cro car lev  vent   report blackmore case on the other side it be insist here be nothing to  amend by will chief justice the motion be to amend the declaration and  original but in fact it be but one amendment for if we grant the amendment in  the original the declaration may be amend of course so that the question will  be whether we can amend the original and as to that there be two rule by which  we be to be govern the one be that no amendment in original writ can be make  unless it be the misprision of the clerk the other that nothing can be amend  unless there be something to do it by in the present case it be not so much as  pretend that there be any misprision in the clerk or officer nor be there any  proceed in the court to amend by the administration be the act of another  court in which we have nothing to do since the statute modern have lie down  these rule whereby we be to be lead the present case not come within either of  they I think we can amend it Denton justice the amendment now desire be to set  forth a new title which I think be so far from be the meaning of the statute  that it be quite the contrary if the plaintiff have mistake the title we can  help that a original writ have often be determine not to be amendable I think  we have no power to grant the amendment fortescue aland justice I do not know  how we can amend a original gauge case be misreport   a for the court there  hold that it can not be do a bill in the king bench be in nature of a original  and a amendment in the date of it cro b have be refuse a writ of error be a  original and be refuse to be amend till allow by Act of parliament salk c I  think it can be amend William fortescue justice it be undoubted true that  original writ be not amendable by commonlaw because they issue out of another  court over which we have no jurisdiction and therefore have no authority over  their proceed and all the power we have to amend be give we by the statute I  think we ought to carry the intent of a Act of parliament as far as it be in  our power but sure we can carry the meaning of this Act which only help the  mistake of a clerk so far as the amendment now desire because that be matter  of substance nor be here anything upon record in our court to amend it by  therefore I be against the amendment