Misnomer in a writ can be corrected where the intended corporate defendant is plainly identifiable, even after limitation expires.

An erroneous corporate description in a writ was treated as a curable misnomer, not the substitution of a new defendant. The court held that, read as a whole and against the surrounding correspondence and dealings, the writ plainly identified the intended company, so a reasonable recipient would understand it was meant for that defendant despite the omission of "Limited" and the use of a non-existent firm name. Because no new party was introduced, the amendment was permissible and limitation did not defeat the claim; the objection to strike out the writ failed and the company remained the proper defendant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ naming "W.J. Daniels & Co. (a firm)" instead of "W.J. Daniel & Co. Ltd." was a case of mere misnomer, or whether the amendment substituted a new defendant after limitation had expired.

Analysis: The description on the writ could only have referred to the defendant company. The correspondence before the action, the dealings between the parties, and the absence of any other entity fitting the description showed that the company knew it was the intended defendant. The omission of the word "Limited", coupled with the reference to a non-existent firm name, did not create a new party. The proper approach was whether a reasonable recipient of the writ would understand that it was meant for him, albeit under a wrong name. On that footing, the defect was a misdescription capable of correction and not the introduction of a new defendant. The company's reliance on the essential nature of the word "Limited" did not compel the conclusion that no defendant had been sued at all.

Conclusion: The amendment was permissible as correction of a misnomer, limitation did not defeat the claim, and the objection to strike out the writ failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the order of the Master was restored, the company remaining the proper defendant notwithstanding the mistaken description in the writ.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a writ, read as a whole and in the surrounding circumstances, plainly identifies the intended defendant, an erroneous corporate description is a curable misnomer and not the substitution of a new party, even if limitation has meanwhile expired.

---