Case Name: Caleb Sherman versus The Proprietors of Connecticut River Bridge
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1814-09
Citations: 10 Tyng 338
Docket Number: 
Parties: Caleb Sherman versus The Proprietors of Connecticut River Bridge.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 11
Pages: 308–309

Head Matter:
Caleb Sherman versus The Proprietors of Connecticut River Bridge.
Of amendment in the case of misnomer of a corporation.
[A mistake in the name of a corporation, being plaintiffs in the action, may be
amended.]
The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants by the name of “ The Proprietors of a Bridge over Connecticut River, between Montague and. Greenfield, late in the county of Hampshire, and now in the county of Franklin.” On motion to the Court at the last April term, which was holden by one judge, the plaintiff was permitted to amend his writ by altering the name of the defendants to that of “ The Proprietors of Connecticut River Bridge.” The defendants objecting to the said amendment, the question was reserved for the consideration of the Court at this term.
And now Mills, of counsel for the plaintiff, stated that, by an act passed in 1792, certain persons were incorporated for the purpose of building a bridge over Connecticut River, by the name by which the defendants were sued in this action ; but the time having expired within which the act authorized the building of the bridge, another act was passed in 1796 for the same purpose, in which the corporation created thereby was called by the name of “ The Proprietors of Connecticut River Bridge.” The person who made the writ in this case was not aware of the second act, and used the first name of the corporation, which had become extinct. The writ was, however, well served by leaving a copy with the clerk of the corporation, so that río inconvenience could follow from the amendment.
Bliss, e contra,
contended that there was nothing in the case by which to amend the writ. The amendment made * an entirely new action. Here was nothing to show [ * 339 ] even an intention, on the part of the plaintiff, to sue the corporation, whom he wishes, in this late stage of the action, to make defendants. Much greater strictness is requisite, in this view, respecting corporations than individual persons, since they can be described or known only by their corporate names.
Stat. 1791, c. 46.
Stat. 1796, c. 24.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The first corporation was dead, and the new one was created for the same purpose and object. The writ was served on the clerk of the existing corporation, by which regular notice was given the real proprietors of the bridge. This is, then, the common case of a misnomer. The amendment may be made, on the common rule of an election by the defendants of the costs of the action to this time, or a continuance,
Burnham vs. Savings Bank, 5 N. H. R. 573. — 1 Chitty, 282, 486, 5th ed.—1 B. & P. 40 —3 Anst. 935.—3 Camp. 29. —16 East, 110.—6 M. & S. 45.—10 Mass. Rep. 203. — Denny & Al. vs. Ward, 3 Pick. 199. — Bullard vs. Nantucket Bank, 25 Mass. Rep. 99.