Is a firm name valid at common law?

At p. 694 Hogg, J.A., said: “I have reached the conclusion, based upon the law as I conceive it to be laid down by the above-mentioned authorities, that at common law a firm, as such, distinct from its partners, does not carry on a business, and that the firm name under which a business is carried on, whether by several persons or by one person only, is simply, as was said by Farwell, L.J., in Sadler v. Whiteman, supra, ‘a mere expression, not a legal entity’, that is to say, an entity having, as its attributes, rights and obligations conferred and imposed upon it by law such as the right to bring an action. Applying this axiom to the present case, and as a consequence thereof, I am of the opinion -- which I formed with very considerable reluctance because the appeal will not be decided upon the facts shown in the evidence adduced at the trial, or, in other words, upon the merits, but will be determined, as it must be, solely upon strict legal principles -- that the institution and commencement of the action, and the proceedings thereafter, were null and void.” I note, however, the comment of the court at pp. 696 and 697: “Because of the reasons I have given, the conclusion I have reached is that the institution of the present action and the purported proceedings therein, was, and were, a nullity and that on this ground the appeal should be allowed and the action should be dismissed with costs of the action and of the appeal, but without prejudice to the right of the respondent to assert in his own name, as he may be advised, any right he may have under the circumstances.” (emphasis added)