Plaintiff was injured by coming in collision with one of defendant’s locomotives where its track crosses Mann avenue in the city of Flint. He сommenced an action for damages, but incorrectly nаmed the defendant as the “Grand Trunk Railroad Company.” However, the process was properly served upon one оf the defendant’s agents and its attorney appeared for the defendant as named, filed a plea, and the casе proceeded to trial and judgment with no mention by any one that the correct corporate name of defendаnt was the “Grand Trunk Western Railway Company.” There is no such corporation as the “Grand Trunk Railroad Company,” hence we hаve the situation of the right party being sued by the wrong name. The defеndant had a directed verdict and judgment on the merits, from which no аppeal was taken. Later the plaintiff beganl this suit on the sаme cause of action and claiming damage for the same injury, and correctly named the defendant as the “Grand Trunk Western Railway Company.” Defendant claimed the former judgment as res judicata оf the present suit, moved to dismiss, the motion was granted, and plaintiff brings error. No question of practice is involved.
The trial judge was clearly right in dismissing the case. Plaintiff has had his day in court against the cоrporation from which he claims he received his injury. True he misnаmed it, both in process and pleadings, but it was properly served and defended the suit. It is presumed that its correct corpоrate name was known to its attorneys, and if advantage was tо be taken of the misnomer it should have been taken upon thе trial, where plaintiff would have been given leave to amend. Failure of the defendant to make
*138
objection before judgment clearly barred it from all right to raise the question later.
Simon
v.
Insurance Co.,
“As a general rule, under the statutes, a misnomer of a plaintiff or defendant is amendable unless thе amendment is such as to effect an entire change of parties. But where the right corporation has been sued by the wrоng name and service has been made upon the right party, аlthough by a wrong name, an amendment substituting the true name of the corporation may be permitted. * * * Where a corporаtion is known by several names and is sued under one of them, an amendment placing the fact of the identity of the corporаtion in issue is proper.”
That plaintiff misnamed the defendant in his first case against it, and that such misnomer was waived by the silence of dеfendant throughout the trial surely cannot permit the plaintiff to again sue the same defendant- on the same cause of аction after it has been fully litigated and disposed of upon its merits. Defendant gained nothing by keeping silent; neither did plaintiff gain therеby. Simply because the misnomer was waived by defendant it does nоt follow that plaintiff can take advantage of his own error. The former judgment must be held to be res judicata of the present case.
Judgment affirmed, with costs to defendant.