BOUVIER'S

LAW

DICTION'ARY
A~D

CONCISE

ENCYCLOPEDIA

BY JOHN ~OUVIER

Iporatis termims icnorafllr It ars.-Co.

LITT. 2D
If

\J. sais qll. chaqll. science It chaqu art

all
co/llmlln

$IS termes prop,,-s. des hO/ll/llIS.-FLEURY

inccttmu

THIRD

REVISrON
RAWLE

(BEING THE EIGHTH EDITION)

BY FRANCIS

OF THB PHILADBLPHIA B

VOLUME

III
:

. ....

KANSAS CITY. MO.

VERNON WEST

LAW BOOK COMPANY

ST. PAUL. MINN.

PUBLISHING
1914

COMPANY

Digitized by

Google

NAME

2286

NAME

biking the Identity ot the corporation; ~Iechanlcs' '" T. Bk. v. Prescott, 12 La. 444. See State v. Mfg. Co., 20 Me. 41, 37 Am. Dec. 38; Com. v. Demuth, 12 S. &: R. (Pa.) 389. A. corporation, like an Individual, may take a name by reputation; Soc. tor Propagating the Gospel v. Young, 2 N. H. 310; Medway C. M. v. Adams, 10 Mass. 360; or may acquire It by usage; it Is not indispensable that the name should be glyen by the charter; Smith v. Plank-Road Co., 30 Ala. 6<H; see Falconer' v. Campbell, 2 McLean, 195, Fed. Cas. No. 4,620; and atter Its name has been changed, It may continue under the old name and thus, by usage, regain the latter and sue tllereunder; 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 ot that name, It was held that suit would lie In the names ot the partleg,; The Nimrod, 141 Fed. 215. The change ot name ot 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, ies 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 tact 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., 36 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 Ill. 32, 23 N. E. 391; such change does not In any way atrect 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. ce., 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 dUfered from the name. In the declaration, but the Identity was apparent, the vurl:tnce was held not to constitute a defence; Dodge v. Barnes, 31 ~le. 200. There Is saId to be a distinction between a misnomer which Incorrectly fwmC8, but correctly describes, a corporation and the statement In tile pleading of an entirely dilIerent party; the former Is curable by amenduient, the latter Is not; Smith v. Plank-Road Co., <:0 Ala. CJO. A grant to a corporation by the wrong name Is good if the corporation reaJly

Intended be apparent i 2 Kent 292; 1 Dill. Mun. Corp. I 179; 80 or a contract; Berks v. Myers, 6 S. & R. (pa.) 12, 9 Am. Dec. 402; anp or a gift by will; 11 Eng. L. & Eq. 191. It a corporation conveys by the wrong name It cannot defeat Its grant, if It has -reeetved the consideration; Sykes v. People, 132 Ill. 32, 23 N. E. 391. As to the protection of a corporation in the use ot its corporate name, see Moraw. Prlv. Corp. 355; TRADE-MARK. See GooI>-WILLi PARTNERSHIP;PARTNERS; MISNOMER. The real name of a party to be arrest~ must be Inserted In the warrant, It known; 8 East 828; Gurnsey v. Lovell, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 320: It unknown, some description must be given; 1 Chitty, 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. 004. As to mistakes In devises, see LEGACY .. As to the use ot names having the same sound, see IDEM SONANS. As to the etrect of uslng a name having the same derivation, see 2 Rolle, Abr. 135; Gordon v. Holiday, 1 Wasb. 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. .\ Ald. 544; Smith v. Casualty Co., 197 N. Y. 420, 90 K E. 947, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1167, 18 Ann. Cas. 701 (where the origin and evolution ot names Is discussed at length); but not, perhaps, where one has obtained a name by judicial decree under a statute; id. Stat-' utes In many states provide for a change or name. Jekyll, M. R., In a P. Wms. 65, declared that anyone might take upon himself as many surnames as he chose; but this judgment was reversed In 4 Bro. P. C. 194 (H. of L.), where It was said that "the Individual ought to have Inherited or obtained an authority for using" a name. Fox-DavIes and Cartyon-Brttton on Names takes the view that no one can create a name tor himself or change his name, but the power to do so Is a prerogative or the crown. The middle name Is unimportant and the omission ot It or Its initial Is ot no legal effect; Cox v. Durham, 128 Fed. 870, 63 C. C. A. 338; Roosevelt v. Ga rdlnler, 2, Cow. (N. Y.) 468; Bletch v. Johnson, 40 Ill. 116; contra, Parker v. Porker, 146 Mass. 320; It tile 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. Ry. Co. v. Pierce, 34 Ind. App. 188, 72 No E. 6<; the initial letter or the first name Is sufficient in a warrant; Cox v. Durhaui, 128 Fed. 870, 63 C. C. A. 338.

Digitized by

Google