Misnomer

The use of a wrong name in designating any person in any instrument or proceeding. In contracts and deeds, a misnomer is generally immaterial if the person intended can be ascertained. 11 Coke, 20; 1 Ld. Raym. 304. In a pleading, a misnomer of a party is ground of abatement, while misnomer of a third person is or is not a fatal variance, accordingly as it is or is not material. See "Idem Sonans."

The use of a wrong name. In contracta, a mistake in the name will not avoid the contract, in general, if the party can be ascertained; 11 Co. 20; Ld. Raym. 304; Hob. 125. So of contracts of corporations; Hoboken Building Ass’n v. Martin, 13 N. J. Eq. 427. See Name. If' a deed, note, etc., be made to a corporation under an erroneous name, the proper course is for the corporation to sue in its proper name and allege that the defendant made the deed, etc., to the corporation by the name mentioned in the Instrument; Northwestern Distilling Co. v. Brant, 69 111. 658, 18 Am. Rep. 631. A contract entered into by a corporation under an assumed name may be enforced by either of the parties, and the identity of the company may be established by the ordinary methods of proof; Marmet Co. V. Archibald, 37 W. Va. 778, 17 S. E. 299. A mianomer of a legatee will not, in general, avoid a legacy, when the context furnishes the means of correction; Schoul. Wills § 583; see 19 Ves. 381; 1 Rop. Leg. 131; Legacy. A legacy give& to a corporation, either by its corporate name, or by description, is good; in the latter case it must be so designated as to be distinguished from every other corporation; New York Inst, for the Blind v. How’s Ex’rs, 10 N. Y. 84. See Preachers’ Aid Soc. of Maine Conference of Methodist Episcopal Church v. Rich, 45 Me. 552; Burdine v. Grand Lodge of Alabama, 37 Ala. 478. When a corporation is misnamed in a statute, the statute is not Inoperative if there is enough to designate what corporation is meant; 10 Co. 44, 57 6. Misnomer of one of the parties to a suit must be pleaded in abatement. It has been held that misnomer of one of the partners of a firm in a scire facias sur mortgage is unimportant, if the name of the firm is correct in the mortgage itself; Rushton v. Rowe, 64 Pa. 63. A slight variation in a corporate name will be disregarded unless the misnomer be taken advantage of by a plea in abatement; Hoereth v. Mill Co., 30 111. 151; Thatcher v. Bank, 19 Mich. 196. If a corporation, sued by an erroneous name, appears cured; Virginia & M. Steam Nav. Co. r. U. S., Taney 418, Fed. Cas. No. 16,973. See Merchants’ St Planters’ Bank v. Meyer, 66 Ark. 499, 20 S. W. 406. But a writ of mandamus issued against a corporation under an erroneous name is void; 2 Ld. Raym. l238; and an error in the corporate name in an execution is fatal; Bradford v. Water Lot Co., 58 Ga. 280. The same is true when there is an error in the corporate name in a judgment; 1 Ld. Raym. 117; but see Sherman v. Proprietors of Bridge, 11 Mass. 338. The names of third persons must be correctly laid; for the error will not be helped by pleading the general issue; but, if a sufficient description be given, it has been held, in a civil case, that the misnomer was immaterial. Example: in an action for medicines alleged to have been furnished to dedefendant’s wife, Mary, and his wife was named Elizabeth, the misnomer was held to be immaterial, the word wife being the material word; 2 Marsh. 159. See Bigelow V. Chatterton, 51 Fed. 614, 2 C. C. A. 402, 10 U. S. App. 267. In indictments, the names of third persons must be correctly given; Rose. Cr. Ev. 78. If a person is well known by the name in the Indictment, the indictment is good; 7 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 445; the middle name of a defendant, if stated in an indictment, either in full or by the initial letter, must be correctly stated; 1 Am. L. Reg. 380. That a party is known by one name as well as another, is a good replication to a plea of misnomer; Parmelee v. Raymond, 43 111. App. 609. Accuracy is especially required in stating the correct name of a corporation in all criminal proceedings in which it may be concerned; 1 Leach 253; but see People v. Potter, 36 Cal. 110. See Archbold; Chi tty. Pleading; Abatement; Oontbact; Parties; Legacy; Name.

The using of one name for another; a misnaming.

Mistake in name; the giving an incorrect name to # person in a pleading, deed, or other instrument.

Misnaming: giving a wrong name to a person, in an instrument or document of any nature.! See Alias, 1; Name, 1.

Misnaming; making a mistake in a person's name.

Error in name; the defect of naming a person incorrectly in a pleading, deed, or other instrument.