NAME. One or more words used to dis tinguish a particular individual: as Soc rates, Benjamin Franklin.
Names are Christian, as Benjamin, or sur names, as Franklin. One Christian name only is recognized in law ; 1 Ld. Raym. 562; Bacon, Abr. Misnomer (A); Boyd v. State, 7 Cold. (Tenn.) 69; Franklin v. Talmadge, 5 Johns. (N. Y.) 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 195. 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. v.) ; Teague v. State, 144 Ala. 42, 40 South. 312; Hunt v. Searcy, 167 Mo. 158, 67 S. W. 206 ; nor "Sec ond," nor the numeral II; Cobb v. Lucas, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 7; nor the prefix Mrs.; State v. Richards, 42 N. J. L. 69 ; Schmidt v. Thomas, 33 Ill. App. 109. But it has been held that where Lewis R. instead of Lewis S. was inserted in a writ of sci. fa. to revive a judgment, the writ was not notice to pur chaser for value in a chain of title, in which Lewis S. was the actual name; Massey v. Noon, 1 Pa. Super. Ct. 198.
It was early held in England that if fa ther and son have the same name it refers prima facie to the father ; 1 Salk. 7 ; 1 Stark. 106; Hob. 330 A.; and some early cases held that, if it was intended to indicate the son, Jr. must be added; State v. Vittum, 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, Quincy (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. 664; and in general a corporation must contract and sue and be sued in its cor porate name ; Porter v. Nekervis, 4 Rand. (Va.) 359.
In the name of a corporation, which fre quently consists of several descriptive words, the transposition, omission, or alteration of some of them may make no essential differ ence in the sense; Newport M. Mfg. Co. v. Starbird, 10 N. H. 124, 34 Am. Dec. 145; 1 B. & Ald. 699; Medway C. M. v. Adams, 10 Mass. 360; if there is no possibility of mis taking the identity of the corporation; Me chanics' & 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 indivirdual, may take a name by reputation ; Soc. for Propa gating 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 indispensa ble that the name should be given by the charter ; Smith v. Plank-Road Co., 30 Ala.
664 ; see Falconer v. Campbell, 2 McLean, 195, Fed. Cas. No. 4,620 ; and after its name has been changed, it may continue under the old name and thus, by usage, regain the lat ter and sue thereunder ; Alexander v. Ber ney, 28 N. J. Eq. 90.
Where parties transacted business and made a contract as the "Tow Boat Compa ny," 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 corpora tion is not material, but is mere business management, and does not require the unani mous consent of stockholders; Thomas & B. Co. v. Thomas, 165 Fed. 29, 91 C. C. A. 67. The omission of part of the corporate name in signing a mortgage and bond does not ren der them invalid, where proof is clear that they were in fact duly authorized and in tended 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 "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 corporate name requires statutory authority, whether done 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, 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 de feated by showing the change, if the mem bership remains the same; Welfley v. Mfg. Co., 83 Va. 768, 3 S. E. 376. When a corpora tion is stied, 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 corpora tion ; 1 B. & P. 39. Where the name in a contract in suit differed from the name in the declaration, but the identity was appar ent, 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 names, but cor rectly describes•, a corporation and the state ment in the pleading of an entirely different party; the former is curable by amendment, the latter is not ; Smith v. Plank-Road Co., 30 Ala. 650. A grant to a corporation by the wrong name is good if the corporation really 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 32, 23 N. E. 391.