name

One or more words habitually used to distinguish a particular individual. A letter of the alphabet does not constitute a name. 232 111. 228. The name of a person consists, among Anglo-Saxon peoples, of one family name, surname, or patronymic, by which all members of the immediate family are known, and one Christian, baptismal, or surname bestowed upon one by his parents, to distinguish him from others of the same family. 5 Eobt. 599. Only one Christian name is recognized in law, and for all legal purposes the use of a For all practical and legal purposes, the name by which a person is known and called in the community in which he lives and is best known, is his name. 149 Iowa 672, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1112. The word "junior" or "jr" forms no part of a person's name, but is merely descriptive. 182 111. 424; 192 111. 184.

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;

The designation of an individual person or of a firm or corporation. In law a man cannot have more than one Christian name. Rex v. Newman, 1 Ld. Raym. 562. As to the history of Christian names and surnames and their use and relative importance in law, see In re Snook, 2 Hilt. (N. Y.) 566.

— Name and arms olause. The popular name in English law for the clause, sometimes inserted in a will or settlement by which property is given to a person, for the purpose of imposing on him the condition that he shall assume the surname and arms of the testator or settlor, with a direction that, if he neglects to assume or discontinues the use of them, the estate shall devolve on the next person in remainder, and a provision for preserving contingent remainders. 3 Dav. Prec. Conv. 277; Sweet

Ifi:, Namiuin, I. I.

In old English law. A taking; a distress; a thing or chattel distrained. Name si est nn general nosme a arers et a cliateux, et a touts auters choses moebles que leu poit prendre en nome de destresse: name is a-general word for beasts and chattels and all other movable things which one may take in name of a distress. Nari-., narratio, 1. 1, Narracon, I. fr.

In old English law. A count, or declaration, so called, as being a narrative by the plaintifiE of the facts of the case which constitutes the ground of actioa

The designation of an individual person, or of a firm or corporation. In law a man cannot have more than one Christian name. 1 Ld. Raym. 562.

1. A designation by which a person, natural or artificial, is known. It is merely a custom for males to take the name of their parents, and not obligatory,^ When two names have the same original, or one is an abbreviation or corruption of the other, but-bothiu common usage are the same, the use of one name for the other is not a material misnomer, ^ When a person is known equally well by two names he may be sued or indicted by either name, or by both,' When a nickname is used, evidence will be received as to the true name. Such a name is but an alias for the true Jiame.' ' Commonwealth v. Dejardin, 120 Mass. 47 (1878), 2 Petition of Spook, 2 Hilt. 568 (1859). = Gordon v. Holiday, 1 Wash. 289 (1805); 13 Mo. 92. ' 'Eagleston v. Son, 5 Robt. 640 (1866); Kennedy v. People, 39 N. Y. 250 (1868). The rule that the middle name is really no part of one's name has not been extended to the Christian name; on the contrary, the law presumes that every person has a Christian name. Where there is a mistake in the name used in the writ, and the writ is yet served on the right person, he is thereby informed that he is the person meant, and he should ple Eid the misnomer in abatement. A non-resident, to whom a wrong name is given in an order of publication, receives no legal notice.* The law recognizes only one Christian name. There are cases countenancing, if not establishing, that the omission of a middle letter is not a misnomer or variance; if so, the middle letter is immaterial, and a wrong letter may be disregarded." Signing by initials satisfies the statute of frauds. ^ And a legatee may be designated by initials.* The effect of designating a candidate for election by his initials has been variously decided.^ ■'Jr." or "Sr." is not part of a name." Nor is *' Mrs." a part.' When father and son have the same name, the use of the name presumptively' designates the father.* Identity of name is prvma facie evidence of identity of person.* As to names having the same sound, see Ideu, Sonans. At common law, a man may lawfully change his name. He is bound by any contract into which he may enter in his adopted or reputed name, and by his recognized name he may sue and be sued.^" As to the use of a name as part of a trade-mark, see that title. 3. A man's name, as the synonym of his power and personality, is often put for the man himself. Thus, an agent is said to buy " in the name " of his principal when he buys 1 Skelton v. Sackett, 91 Mo. 379-80 (1886); 37 id. 301. 'Keene v. Meade, 3 Pet. *" C1830), cases; Games v. Stiles, 14 id. Zil (1840); Commonwealth v. O'Heam, 132 Mass. 553 (1882); State v. Black, 12 Mo. Ap. 534 (1882), cases; State v. Teeny, 13 R. I. 623 (1S82), See also 32 Cent. Law J. 487 (1886), cases; 17 Ala. 179; 39 Dl. 457; 52Ind. 347; 20 Iowa, 98; 10 Miss. 391; 28 N. H. 561; 14 Barb. 261; 5 Johns. 84; 19 Ohio, 423; 4 Watts, 329; 7W. & S. 406; 14 Tex. 402; 28 id. 772; 26 Vt. 599. > Addison, Contr. 46, n; 1 Denio, 471. * Abbot V. Massie, 3 Ves. *148 (1796). See also Minor V. State, C3 Ga. 321 (1879). 'Cooley, Const. Lim. 766; 38 Me. 559; 16 Mich. 283; 8 Cow. 102; 4 Wis. 429. •Commonwealth v. Perkins, 1 Pick. 338 '(1823); 8 Conn. 280; 23 Me. 171; 9 N. H. 519. ' Elberson v. Richards, 42 N. J. L. 70 (1880). 8 Brown v. Benight, 3 Blackf. 39 (1832). • Stebbins v. Duncan, 103 U. S. 47 (1832), cases; State V. Kelsoe, 76 Mo. 507 (1882); 25 Pa. 133; 68 id. 200; 53 Mi. 427. '» Linton u. First Nat. Bank of Kittannlng, 10 F. R. 897(1882), cases; Commonwealth v. Trainor, 123 Mass. for him, declaring his agency. A man invests " in his own name " (as executor) when he invests openly for himself, though he only receives evidence (bonds) of the investment.! See Addition, 3; Alias, 1; Fohoery; Misnomer; Signature. Compare Nomen. Namely. See "Wit.

The designation by which a person or corporation is usually known. Many decisions have said that the law recognizes only one Christian name; and the insertion or omission of a middle name, or any error in it, or the giving an initial only, is not a material variance; and, for civil purposes, it has been held that a single letter may be taken as an entire Christian name. Whether this is allowable in an indictment has been differently decided. Such affixes as junior or senior form no part of the name. If several persons bear the same name, it is a question of fact which one is intended, in any'particular case, when it is used. By a familiar principle, known as the rule of idem sonans, trivial differences in spelling of names, not materially affecting the sound, are disregarded; the name is deemed the same if the pronunciation is substantially preserved, notwithstanding variations of orthography. See U. S. Dig. tit. Persons. Where two names have the same original derivation, or where one is an abbreviation or corruption of the other, but both are taken promiscuously, and according to common usage, to be the same, though differing in sound, the use of one for the other is not a material misnomer. Gordon V. Holiday, 1 Wash. 285; Wilkerson v. State, art, or occupation; such as merchant, mercer, tailor, painter, clerk, schoolmaster, husbandman, laborer, or the like. 2 Hawk. ch. 23, § 111. N. it will be presumed, nothing appearing to show the contrary, where the name is used, that the father is intended. Brown v. Benight, 3 Blackf. 39. It is merely a custom for males to assume the name of their parents, but it is not obligatory, nor is it punishable to adopt another name. Any contract or obligation, grant or devise, entered into or made by or with reference to a man by a name which he has voluntardy assumed, is as valid and effectual as if the original name were employed. Petition of Snook, 2 HUt. 566. Engraving upon the collar of a dog the initials of the owner's name is not engraving on the collar the " name of the owner " of the dog, within the meaning of a statute requiring this. Morey v. Brown, 42 A^. H. 373. Where a defendant is known as well by one name as another, he may be sued and arrested by either, and it is immaterial by what name he was known to the plaintiffs in the action. Eagleston v. Sou, 5 Robt. 640. When a person affected by a crime is known by two names, and the pleader, for greater certainty, deems it necessary to aver both names in an indictment, it is immaterial which of the two names is first stated, and which was the real name. It is sufficient if the pleading designates with certainty the names by which the person intended may be known, and the priority of the names in the statement is unimportant. Kennedy v. People, 39 N. Y. 245; 5 Abb. Pr N. s. 147. The corporate name of a township is not " the congressional township, numbered," &c., but " the inhabitants of congressional township, numbered," &c. State o. Anderson, 7 Blachf. 222.