
    CAREY & HILL v. CRANSTON & STOVALL.
    April 27, 1896. Argued at the last term.
    Complaint on account. Before Judge Reese. Hancock superior court. February term, 1895.
    Cranston & Stovall, as a firm composed of W. J. Cranston and-Stovall, sued Carey & Hill in complaint upon an account. Defendant pleaded tbe general issue. Upon tbe trial plaintiffs put in evidence testimony of F. M. Stovall, as follows: I am a member of the firm of Cranston & Stovall. Mrs. Anna H. Cranston, of Augusta, Ga., is my copartner. Tbe witness explained tbe beginning and conduct of their business with defendants, and testified to the correctness of the account sued on and that the amount sued for was due and owing to plaintiffs by defendants. Plaintiffs having closed, defendants moved a nonsuit because the petition alleged that the sum sued for was due to W. J. Cranston and - Stovall, and the evidence showed that the account, if due at all, was due to Anna H. Cranston and F. M. Stovall. Thereupon plaintiffs moved to amend the petition by striking the name of W. J. Cranston as one of the firm and substituting the name of A. M. Cranston, so that the declaration should allege: “Cranston & Stovall, a firm of merchants and factors composed of A. M. Cranston and F. M. Stovall.” Over objection of defendants this amendment was allowed, and the motion to nonsuit was overruled, to both of which rulings defendants excepted. There was a verdict for plaintiffs.
   Atkinson, J.

Where a partnership brings an action in its firm name, stating in its declaration the names of the persons constituting the firm, a misnomer in the Christian name of either of the persons named as copartners may he corrected instanter, on motion, by amendment. Code, §3483; Johnson v. Central Railroad, 74 Ga. 397. Judgment affirmed,.

Hunt <& Merritt, for plaintiffs in error.

R. H. Lewis, contra.  