Hoesley v. La Crosse VFW Chapter
| Decision Date | 31 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 183,183 |
| Citation | 175 N.W.2d 214,46 Wis.2d 501 |
| Parties | Dorothy HOESLEY, Respondent, v. LA CROSSE VFW CHAPTER, Thomas Rooney Post, Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
This is an action commenced on June 7, 1968, by Dorothy Hoesley (hereinafter the 'respondent') to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from a fall on the premises of the appellant La Crosse VFW Chapter, Thomas Rooney Post.
The respondent attempted to commence the action against appellant by service of a summons and complaint upon Joseph Ormsby, the post commander. The appellant, however, made a special appearance to challenge the trial court's jurisdiction over its peson, claiming neither the summons nor the complaint reflected its proper name and its corporate character.
The appellant appeals from an order denying its motion to dismiss the action because of improper service of process.
Additional facts will be stated in the opinion.
N. George DeDakis, La Crosse, for appellant.
Arneson, Berg & Doyle, Ltd., Patrick R. Doyle, La Crosse, for respondent.
The sole issue before this court is whether the service of process was valid, thereby giving the trial court personal jurisdiction over the appellant.
Paragraph 2 of the respondent's original complaint erroneously refers to the appellant as 'an association' and, like the summons, lists the appellant's name as 'La Crosse VFW Chapter, Thomas Rooney Post.' Since the appellant, although located in La Crosse, is, in fact, a corporation whose correct name is 'Thomas Rooney Post No. 1530, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States,' it is contended that the trial court had no personal jurisdiction over the appellant.
It is the respondent's position, however, that the complaint is not relevant to whether there was proper service of the summons and that the name variance is amendable where, as here, there is no doubt as to the identity of the party to be sued.
The general rule has been stated as follows:
'In most jurisdictions, the practice statutes or rules of practice in express terms authorize the court in furtherance of justice to amend any process by adding or striking out the name of a person as a party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party.' 42 Am.Jur., Process, p. 22, sec. 21.
In this jurisdiction, sec....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J. M. S. v. Benson
...an action has been commenced against him. Lees v. ILHR Department, 49 Wis.3d 491, 497, 182 N.W.2d 245; Hoesley v. La Crosse VFW Chapter, 46 Wis.2d 501, 503, 175 N.W.2d 214 (1970); Milwaukee County v. Schmidt, Garden & Erikson, 35 Wis.2d 33, 36, 150 N.W.2d 354 (1967), and cases cited. A summ......
-
S.E. Wis., Inc. v. Paul Davis Restoration Wisconsin
...in Hoesley[ v. La Crosse VFW Chapter], which the plaintiff correctly sued but simply misnamed as “La Crosse VFW Chapter, Thomas Rooney Post,” see46 Wis.2d [501] at 502, 175 N.W.2d 214 [(1970)], Cintas and Cintas No. 2 are two, distinct legal entities, and Johnson mistakenly sued the first i......
-
Johnson v. Cintas Corp. No. 2
...by changing the named defendant from Cintas to Cintas No. 2. Furthermore, relying on this court's decision in Hoesley v. La Crosse VFW Chapter, 46 Wis.2d 501, 175 N.W.2d 214 (1970), Johnson submitted that default judgment should still be entered against Cintas No. 2 because Cintas No. 2 was......
-
White v. Marshall
...at any stage of the suit, or even after judgment, and a judgment taken by default is enforceable. Hoesley v. La Crosse VFW Chapter, 46 Wis.2d 501, 175 N.W.2d 214, 215 (Wis. 1970) (quoting 42 Am.Jur., Process, p. 22, sec. 21). Therefore, Marshall is mistaken to think that the error regarding......