disagreed, and Burgess appealed. The Missouri appellate court stated that a misnomer is not automatically fatal, and if the judgment creditor can show who the true defendant is, it may proceed to enforce a judgment against the debtor. The court also stated that if a defendant is personally served, even if the name is incorrect, he must appear and call attention to the defect. Failing to do so waives the objection to the misnomer and allows a judgment to be rendered against him by default. The court concluded by stating that Dako Products Company was merely a trade name under which Burgess operated and that because they were one and the same, the findings of the trial court were amply supported. Cf. Ayers Asph. Pav. v. Rose Cem. & Constr., 109 Ill. App. 3d 520, 440 N.E.2d 907 (1982) (<HOLDING>). In the case at bar, Olson testified in his
holding that even before ohio revcode  313123b was enacted a deceaseds next of kin had no protected right in autopsy specimens pursuant to ohio statutes holding that defendants contacts with ohio were deliberate and repeated even though they yielded little revenue from ohio holding that the owner of an equitable interest in property in the form of a land contract can grant a mortgage on that interest under ohio law holding no violation of ohio state voyeurism statute when the privacy interest to be protected had been waived by the females who probably expected to be observed holding that the illinois uniform enforcement of foreign judgments act did not allow the plaintiff to amend an ohio judgment to include the name of the defendant corporation which had not been named as a party in the original ohio action and that the plaintiffs relief must be obtained in the ohio courts