¶1 The endorsement of the words “ alias ” and “ pluries,” formed no part of the record, and could not have the effect of changing their tenor from originals to alias and pluries executions. This was conceded by the defendant when she sought to have them amended by an order of the County Court. However extensive the powers of the Courts may be in respect to amendments, .they certainly have not *429 the power to allow them without notice, when they change in substance the process from what it was when issued, if the rights of third persons be thereby affected: Bank of Cape Fear v. Williamson, 2 Ire. 147; Phillipse v. Higdon, Bus. 380.
¶2 The case before us is a strong illustration of the injustice ■of such a course. An amendment is allowed in 1864 without notice to the party interested, which in effect reached back and disturbed a title acquired in 1853. The record of the County Oourt having been transferred to the Superior ■Court, his Honor was correct in vacating the order and the amendments made in pursuance thereof by the County Court in 1864.
¶3 Pee Curiam. Affirmed.