BOUVIER'S

LAW DICTION'ARYA~D

CONCISE ENCYCLOPEDIA

BY JOHN ~OUVIER

Iporatis termims icnorafllr It ars.-Co. LITT. 2D

\J. sais qll. chaqll. science It chaqu« art If $IS termes prop,,-s. inccttmuall co/llmlln des hO/ll/llIS.-FLEURY

THIRD REVISrON(BEING THE EIGHTH EDITION)

BY FRANCIS RAWLEOF THB PHILADBLPHIA B••••

VOLUME III. .: ....

KANSAS CITY. MO.VERNON LAW BOOK COMPANY

ST. PAUL. MINN.WEST PUBLISHING COMPANY

1914

Digitized by Google

NAMEbiking the Identity ot the corporation; ~Ie-chanlcs' '" T. Bk. v. Prescott, 12 La. 444. SeeState v. Mfg. Co., 20 Me. 41, 37 Am. Dec. 38;Com. v. Demuth, 12 S. &: R. (Pa.) 389.

A. corporation, like an Individual, maytake a name by reputation; Soc. tor Propa-gating the Gospel v. Young, 2 N. H. 310;Medway C. M. v. Adams, 10 Mass. 360; ormay acquire It by usage; it Is not indispensa-ble that the name should be glyen by thecharter; Smith v. Plank-Road Co., 30 Ala.6<H; see Falconer' v. Campbell, 2 McLean,195, Fed. Cas. No. 4,620; and atter Its namehas been changed, It may continue under theold name and thus, by usage, regain the lat-ter and sue tllereunder; Alexander v. Ber-ney, 28 N. J. Eq. 90.

Where parties transacted business andmade a contract as the "Tow Boat Compa-ny," there being no corporation ot that name,It was held that suit would lie In the namesot the partleg,; The Nimrod, 141 Fed. 215.

The change ot name ot a private corpora-tion Is not material, but Is mere businessmanagement, and does not require the unani-mous consent of stockholders; Thomas &: B.Co. v. Thomas, ies Fed. 29, 91 C. C. A. 67.The omission of part of the corporate name Insigning a mortgage and bond does not ren-der them invalid, where proof Is clear thatthey were In tact duly authorized and in-tended to be obligations of the corporation;In re Goldville Mfg. Co., 118Fed. 892. Where'Company" is not part of a corporate name,and it is sued with the addition of "Com-pany," It may be amended; Rosenbluth v.Reis Circuit. Co., 36 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 332.

But It Is held that a change of corporatename requires statutory authority, whetherdone directly or by user, though It may ac-quire a name by user when not given at In-corporation; Sykes v. People, 132 Ill. 32, 23N. E. 391; such change does not In any wayatrect Its Identity or rights; and an actionagainst It by Its former name cannot be de-feated by showing the change, 'if the mem-bership remains the same; Welfley v. Mfg.ce., 83 Va. 768, 3 S. E. 376. When a corpora-tion Is sued, a mistake In the name, In wordsand syllables, but not In substance, will notbe regarded, unless pleaded In abatement;but if the mistake be In substance, the suitcannot be regarded as against the corpora-tion; 1 B. & P. 39. Where the name In acontract In suit dUfered from the name. Inthe declaration, but the Identity was appar-ent, the vurl:tnce was held not to constitutea defence; Dodge v. Barnes, 31 ~le. 200.There Is saId to be a distinction between amisnomer which Incorrectly fwmC8, but cor-rectly describes, a corporation and the state-ment In tile pleading of an entirely dilIerentparty; the former Is curable by amenduient,the latter Is not; Smith v. Plank-Road Co.,<:0 Ala. CJO. A grant to a corporation by thewrong name Is good if the corporation reaJly

2286 NAMEIntended be apparent i 2 Kent 292; 1 Dill.Mun. Corp. I 179; 80 or a contract; Berksv. 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 nameIt cannot defeat Its grant, if It has -reeetvedthe consideration; Sykes v. People, 132 Ill.32, 23 N. E. 391.

As to the protection of a corporation inthe 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 mustbe given; 1Chitty, Cr. Law 39; with the rea-son for the omission; 1 Mood. & M. 281.

Proof may be given that the maker of anInstrument habitually applied a nicknameor peculiar designation used therein to aparticular person or thing; Boggs v. Taylor,26 Ohio St. 004. As to mistakes In devises,see LEGACY.. As to the use ot names havingthe same sound, see IDEM SONANS. As tothe etrect of uslng a name having the samederivation, see 2 Rolle, Abr. 135; Gordon v.Holiday, 1 Wasb. C. C. 285, Fed. Cas. No.5,610. At common law one could change hisname; 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 otnames Is discussed at length); but not, per-haps, where one has obtained a name byjudicial decree under a statute; id. Stat-'utes In many states provide for a change orname. Jekyll, M. R., In a P. Wms. 65, de-clared that anyone might take upon him-self as many surnames as he chose; butthis judgment was reversed In 4 Bro. P. C.194 (H. of L.), where It was said that "theIndividual ought to have Inherited or ob-tained an authority for using" a name.Fox-DavIes and Cartyon-Brttton on Namestakes the view that no one can create aname tor himself or change his name, butthe power to do so Is a prerogative or thecrown.

The middle name Is unimportant and theomission ot It or Its initial Is ot no legal ef-fect; 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; Ittile middle Initial Is given, It need not becorrect even In criminal cases; People v.Lockwood, 6 Cal, 205; Franklin v. Talmadge,5 Johns. (N. Y.) 84; Cox v. Durham, 128Fed. 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 Issufficient in a warrant; Cox v. Durhaui, 128Fed. 870, 63 C. C. A. 338.

Digitized by Google