Allen v. Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington Railroad
Superior Court of Delaware
Action by William F. Allen against the Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington Railroad Company. On motion of plaintiff to amend name' of defendant after plea in abatement. Amendment allowed. After service of process and plaintiff had filed his declaration, a plea in abatement, based on the misnomer of defendant by the omission of “The” in the corporate name, was filed.
Read the full summary
Action by William F. Allen against the Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington Railroad Company. On motion of plaintiff to amend name' of defendant after plea in abatement. Amendment allowed. After service of process and plaintiff had filed his declaration, a plea in abatement, based on the misnomer of defendant by the omission of “The” in the corporate name, was filed. At the succeeding term of court plaintiff moved to amend the record and declaration with respect to the name of the defendant as given by the plea in abatement. It was urged for plaintiff that since a mere misnomer is relied on…
1Opinion of the Court
Boyce, J.,
delivering the opinion of the court:
The matter in abatement set up by the plea in abatement is that the defendant is mis-named. As a general rule an action should not be abated on the ground of a mere misnomer, and especially so when, as in this case, the defendant is clearly identified. The plaintiff asks leave to amend by prefixing the word “The” before the name of the defendant as sued so that its right name given by the plea in abatement may appear on the record and in the pleadings. Since it is manifest that no prejudice will result, the amendment should be allowed.
It appears…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hughes v. Diamond Match Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1897
3Cited by2 opinions
- Elbert v. Wilmington TurngemeindeSupreme Court of Delaware · 1919
- Atkinson v. North American Smelting Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1968