Name

One or more words used to distinguish a particular individual: as Socrates, Benjamin Franklin. Names are Christian, as Benjamin, or surnames, as Franklin. One Christian name only is recognized in law; 1 Ld. Raym. 502; DICTIONARY AND ENCYCLOPEDIA Cold. (Tenn.) 09; Franklin v. Talmadge, 5 Johns. (N. 1'.) 84; though two or more names usually kept separate, as John and Peter, may undoubtedly be compounded, so as to form in contemplation of law but one; 5 Term 105. The cases on various points are conflicting, but some of them will be given, without attempt to harmonize them. An initial is no part of a name. See Initial. Nor is the title junior ( q. t\); Teague v. State, 144 Ala. 42, 40 South. 312; Hunt v. Searcy, 107 Mo. 138, 07 S. W. 200; nor “Second,” nor the numeral II; Cobb v. Lucas, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 7; nor the prefix Mrs,; State v. Richards, 42 N. J. L. 09; Schmidt v. Thomas, 33 111.

App. 109.

But it has been held that where Lewis R. instead of Lewis S. was inserted in a writ of sen, fa, to revive a judgment, the writ was not notice to purchaser for value in a chain of title, in which Lewis S. was the actual name; Massey v. Noon, 1 Ta. Super. Ct. 198. It was early held in England that if father and son have the same name it refers prima facie to the father; 1 Salk. 7; 1 Stark. 100; Hob. 330 A.; and some early cases held that, if it was intended to indicate the son, Jr. must be added; State v. Vittuin, 9 N. H. 522; and where father and son of the same name resided in the same town, it was held that a writ against the son would abate if Jr. were omitted; Zuill v. Bradley, Quinev (Mass.) 6. The name of a corporation is said to be “the very being of the constitution”; Bac. Abr. Corp. (C): Smith v. Plank-Road Co., 30 Ala. 004; and in general a corporation must contract and sue and be sued in its corporate name; Porter v., Nekervis, 4 Rand. (Va.) 359. In the name of a corporation, which frequently consists of several descriptive words, the transposition, omission, or alteration of some of them may make no essential difference in the sense; Newport M. Mfg. Co. v. Star bird, 10 N. II. 124, 34 Am. Dec. 145; 1 B. & Aid. 099; Medway C. M. v. Adams, 10 taking the identity of the corporation; Mechanics’ & T. Bk. v. Prescott, 12 La. 444.

See State v. Mfg. Co., 20 Me. 41, 37 Am. Dec. 38; Cum. v. Pemuth, 12 S. & II. (Ta.) 389.

A corporation, like an individual, may take a name by reputation; Soc. for Propagating the Cospcl v. Young, 2 N. II. 310; Medway C. M. v. Adams, 10 Mass. 300; or may acquire it by usage; it is not indispensable that the name should be given by the charter; Smith v. Plank-Road Co., 30 Ala. 00 1; see Falconer v. Campbell, 2 Mc Lean, 105, Fed. Cas. No. 4,020; and after its name has been changed, it may continue under the old name and thus, by usage, regain the latter and sue thereunder; Alexander v. Berney, 28 N. J. Eq. 90. Where parties transacted business and made a contract as the “Tow Boat Company,” there being no corporation of that name, it was held that suit would lie in the names of the parties; The Nimrod, 141 Fed. 215. The change of name of a private corporation is not material, but is mere business management, and does not require the unanimous consent of stockholders; Thomas & B. Co. v. Thomas, 1G5 Fed. 29, 91 C. C. A, 67. The omission of part of the corporate name in signing a mortgage and bond does not render them invalid, where proof is clear that they were in fact duly authorized and intended to be obligations of the corporation; In re Goldville Mfg. Co., 118 Fed. 892. Where •Company” is not part of a corporate name, and it is sued with the addition of “Company,” it may be amended; Rosenbluth v.‘ Reis Circuit Co., 3G Pa. Co. Ct. R. 332. But it is held that a change of corporate name requires statutory authority, whether done directly or by user, though it may acquire a name by user when not given at incorporation; Sykes v. People, 132 111. 32, 23 N. E. 391; such change does not in any way affect its identity or rights; and an action against it by its former name cannot be defeated by showing the change, if the membership remains the same; Welfley v. Mfg. Co., 83 Va. 768, 3 S. E. 376. When a corporation is sued, a mistake in the name, in words and syllables, but not in substance, will not be regarded,.unless pleaded in abatement; but if the mistake be in substance, the suit cannot be regarded as against the corporation; 1 B. & P. 39. Where the name in a contract in suit differed from the name in the declaration, ^but the identity was apparent, the variance was held not to constitute a defence; Dodge v. Barnes, 31 Me. 290. There is said to be a distinction between a misnomer which incorrectly name it, but correctly describes, a corporation and the statement in the pleading of an entirely different party; the former is curable by amendment, the latter is not; Smith v. Plank-Road Co., intended be apparent; 2 Kent 292; 1 Dill. Mun. Corp. § 179; so of a contract; Berks v. Myers, 6 S. & R. (Pa.) 12, 9 Am. Dec. 402; and of a gift by will; 11 Eng. L. & Eq. 191. If a corporation conveys by the wrong name it cannot defeat its grant, if it has received the consideration; Sykes v. People, 132 111.

32, 23 N. E. 391.

As to the protection of a corporation in the use of its corporate name, see Moraw. Priv. Corp § 355; Trade-Mark. See Good-Will; Partnership; Partners; Misnomer. The real name of a party to be arrested must be inserted in the warrant, if known; 8 East 828; Gurnsey v. Lovell, 9 Wend. (N. Y.>.”>20: if unknown, some description must be given; 1 Cliitty, Cr. Law 39; with the reason for the omission; 1 Mood. & M. 281. Proof may be given that the maker of an instrument habitually applied a nickname or peculiar designation used therein to a particular person or thing; Boggs v. Taylor, 26 Ohio St. 604. As to mistakes in devises, see Legacy. As to the use of names having the same sound, see Ti>em Sonans. As to the effect of using a name having the same derivation, see 2 Rolle, Abr. 135; Gordon v. Holiday, 1 Wash. C. C. 285, Fed. Cas. No. 5.610. At common law one could change his name; Linton v. Bank, 10 Fed. 894; Com. v. Trainor, 123 Mass. 415; 3 B. & Aid. 544; Smith v. Casualty Co., 197 N. Y. 420, 90 N. E. 947, 26 L. It. A. (N. S.) 1167, 18 Ann. Cas. 701 (where the origin and evolution of names is discussed at length); but not, perhaps. where one has obtained a name by judicial decree under a statute; id. Statutes in many states provide for a change of name. Jekyll, M. It., in 3 P. Wins. 65, declared that any one might take upon himself as many surnames as he chose; but this judgment was reversed in 4 Bro. P. C. 194 (11. of L.), where it was said that “the individual ought to have inherited or obtained an authority for using” a name. Fox-Da vies and Carlyon-Britton on Names takes the view that no one can create a name for himself or change his name, but the power to do so is a prerogative of the crown. The middle name is unimportant and the omission of it or its initial is of no legal effect; Cox v. Durham, 128 Fed. 870, 63 C. C. A. 338; Roosevelt v. Gardinier, 2 Cow. (N. Y.) 463; Bletch v. Johnson, 40 111. 11G; contra, Parker v. Parker, 146 Mass. 320; if the middle initial is given, it need not be correct even in criminal cases; People v. Lockwood, 6 Cal. 205; Franklin v. Talmadge, 5 Johns. (N. Y.) 84; Cox v. Durham, 128 Fed. 870, 63 C. C. A. 338; contra, King v. Clark, 7 Mo. 269; Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Iiy. Co. v. Pierce, 34 Ind. App. 188, 72 N. E. 004; the initial / letter of the first name is The occasional use of a single letter as a name developed a strange contradiction. It was held that a vowel, being complete in itself, was sufficient, and a consonant, being part of a complete sound, was not; 6 C. B. 577; 7 C. B. 980. The supposed distinction was put an end to in 15 Jur. (357, by Lord Campbell. In this country the question has been raised and two initials were held to be a valid Christian name; Tweedy v. Jarvis, 27 Conn. 42; this has also been held in South Carolina; City Council v. King, 4 Mc Cord (S. C.) 487; but the contrary was held in that state in one case; Norris v. Graves, 4 Strob. (S. C.) 32. A mistake in the middle initial does not invalidate a process under which title to land is taken; Johnson v. Day, 2 N. D. 295;