▁that ▁the ▁pla int iff ▁lack ed ▁loc us ▁stand i , ▁because ▁▁ ▁it ▁was ▁not ▁a ▁univers itas ; ▁ ▁it ▁did ▁not ▁have ▁a ▁constitution ; ▁and ▁ ▁it ▁did ▁not ▁have ▁a ▁direct ▁and ▁substantial ▁interest ▁in ▁the ▁subject - m atter ▁of ▁the ▁action . ▁ ▁Con vers ely , ▁the ▁pla int iffs ▁argued ▁that ▁the ▁first ▁pla int iff ▁was ▁able ▁to ▁sue ▁in ▁its ▁own ▁name ▁by ▁virtue ▁of ▁the ▁prov isions ▁of ▁rule ▁ 1 4 ( 2 ) ▁of ▁the ▁Un iform ▁R ules ▁of ▁Court . ▁( Rule ▁ 1 4 ( 1 ) ▁defines ▁a ▁" f irm " ▁as ▁" a ▁business , ▁including ▁a ▁business ▁carried ▁on ▁by ▁[...] ▁the ▁sole ▁propriet or ▁there of ▁under ▁a ▁name ▁other ▁than ▁his ▁own ▁name ," ▁while ▁Rule ▁ 1 4 ( 2 ) ▁allows ▁such ▁a ▁firm ▁to ▁sue ▁or ▁be ▁su ed ▁in ▁its ▁own ▁name .) ▁ ▁Jud gment ▁ ▁The ▁court ▁held ▁that ▁rule ▁ 1 4 ( 2 ) ▁was ▁nothing ▁more ▁than ▁a ▁proced ural ▁aid , ▁in ▁that ▁it ▁assist ed ▁a ▁pla int iff ▁to ▁c ite ▁certain ▁legal ▁entities ▁that ▁did ▁not ▁have ▁any ▁existence ▁separate ▁from ▁their ▁members ▁or ▁own ers . ▁It ▁did ▁not ▁turn ▁a ▁partners hip , ▁a ▁firm ▁or ▁an ▁un in cor por ated ▁association ▁into ▁a ▁different ▁entity ▁that ▁existed ▁separate ▁from ▁its ▁members ; ▁nor ▁did ▁it ▁vest ▁it ▁with ▁loc us ▁stand i