In Winters v. Lewis, 260 Ark. 563, 542 S.W.2d 746 (1976), the supreme court explained: "It is consistent with both the spirit and letter of our statutes governing pleadings to consider, under the circumstances prevailing, that the amendment to the complaint in this case (which raised no new issue but simply corrected the name of the defendant) related back to the original complaint, so that a default judgment was barred by the original answer. If the bar of the statute of limitations may be avoided by such means, the declaration of a default should, by a similar treatment, be prevented." (260 Ark. at 570, 542 S.W.2d at 750.) In Winters, the only difference between the original complaint and the amended complaint was to correct a party's name.