Court Opinion

ID: 9853357
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:47:10.158101+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:46.215663
License: Public Domain

*17Judge ARNOLD,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in holding that plaintiffs action should have been dismissed for violation of Rule 8(a)(2). However, I respectfully dissent from that part of the opinion holding that plaintiff sued and served the wrong party.
It is true that the defendant law firm has always been a partnership and never a corporation. It is also true that plaintiff meant to sue the law firm, Petree, Stockton, Robinson, Vaughn, Glaze and Maready. A summons was even served on “William H. Petree (General Partner)” as is pointed out by the majority.
Under the facts of this case there could be no possible misunderstanding as to the exactitude of the party defendant being sued. In my view the identity of the defendant was sufficiently stated to bring the law firm within the trial court’s jurisdiction. The common sense reasoning by which our Supreme Court reached its result in Wiles seems to apply to the facts of this case. I would reverse as to plaintiffs appeal.