Opinion ID: 1139006
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dispositive Law

Text: Southern Trucking Serv., Inc. v. Mississippi Sand & Gravel, Inc., 483 So.2d 321 (Miss. 1986) is dispositive of the issue. In Southern Trucking, the issue was one of first impression, so this Court considered the various views espoused by other jurisdictions. In sum, this Court decided to reject the admittedly harsh minority view which holds that a misnomer should mean the death-knell of a case. Id. at 323 (citing case law from other jurisdictions). This Court instead adopted the general view which holds that a misnomer is not fatal so long as the incorrectly-identified party knew what was meant. Id. (citing Bank of America v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County, 35 Cal. App.3d 555, 110 Cal. Rptr. 709, 710 (1973) (bank knew at all times the case it had to meet despite the misnomer). Thus, an amendment correcting a misnomer is permissible at any time or any stage in the proceedings. Id. at 324 (citing 67A C.J.S. Parties § 172); see also Donald v. Luckie Strike Loans, Inc., 148 Ga. App. 318, 251 S.E.2d 168, 169-70 (1978). When a judgment is amended, it is as though the entire action had been conducted in the correct name of the [party]. Southern Trucking Serv., Inc., 483 So.2d at 324. In sum, under Mississippi law, an amendment is permitted so long as the evidence does not suggest that the misnomer misled the parties into thinking that another [party] was meant. Id. (quoting Cigan v. St. Regis House Hotel, 72 Ill. App.3d 884, 29 Ill.Dec. 38, 41, 391 N.E.2d 197, 200 (1979).