Without laying off the defendant’s homestead to which he was entitled, the plaintiff had the land levied on and sold; and bought the same; and instituted this action to recover thepossession. The plaintiffhas no right to recover the possession. If the fond had been worth more than the homestead, and. the plaintiff had caused the homestead to be laid off, then) of course, the excess would have been subject, to executiomsale gbut it wras not done, and it is found as a-fact that the homestead will cover the whole land.

There must be judgment, therefore, for the defendant.

After trial and. verdict the plaintiff asked leave to amend her complaint, so- as to change it into an action to remove a cloud from, her title caused by fraudulent deeds set up by third persons. This was irregular and) ought not to have been allowed.

Pee Curiam. Judgment reversed, andjudgment here for defendant.