Exception to the Mirror Image Rule

The mirror image rule holds that if "an appeal from a Justice of the Peace Court fails to correspond to the process on which the action is founded in the names of the parties, number of the parties, or in the character of the suit, the variance is fatal and the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal." Dzedzej v. Prusinski, Del.Super., 259 A.2d 384, 385 (1969) (citing McDowell v. Simpson, Del.Super., 1 Houst. 467 (1885)). See also Cooper's Home Furnishing's v. Smith, Del.Super., 250 A.2d 507 (1969); Sulla v. Quillen, Del.Super., Ridgely, J., 1987 WL 18425 (Sep. 24 1987). In Freibott v. Patterson-Schwartz, Inc., Del.Super., 740 A.2d 4 (1999) the court in found that the appellant "filed a timely appeal and attempted to set forth all of the parties necessary for de novo review," and concluded as a result "the Court of Common Pleas was able to exercise subject matter over the appeal." "'In order for the Court of Common Pleas to have jurisdiction of an appeal de novo from the Justice of the Peace Court, the parties below and on appeal must be identical in name, number, character, or right in which they may be sued or are sued.'" Hicks v. Taggart, Del.Super., No. 98 A-05-002, Ridgely, J., 1999 WL 462375 (April 12, 1999).