It is held that since the use of initials in stead of a given name before a surname has become a common practice, these initials must all be given and correctly given in court proceedings ; Carney v. Bigham, 51 Wash. 452, 99 Pac. 21, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 905, where a certificate of tax delinquency reciting the name of the person assessed as J. G. Carney instead of J. E. Carney as it appeared on the assessment* rolls was held insufficient to sustain a foreclosure.
Parties cannot in legal proceedings be des ignated by mere description ; the words "and wife" following defendant's name do not make the wife a party ; Sossman v. Price, 57 Ala. 204; nor "Mr. and Mrs." followed by the husband's initials and surname ; Kauffman v. Sherbondy, 22 Pa. Dist. R. 114.
A mistake in the Christian name of a de fendant duly served gives the court jurisdic tion, if at the time of service he was duly apprised that he was the person intended to be named therein, where the statutes pro vide for correcting such mistakes; Stuy vesant v. Weil, 167 N. Y. 421, 60 N. E. 738, 53 L. R. A. 562. Misspelling is immaterial I either of the Christian ; Harrell v. Neef, 80 Kan. 348, 102 Pac. 838; or the surname; Phillips v. Palmer, 56 TeX. ay. App. 91, 120 S. W. 911; particularly if they are idem I sonans.
The omission of the Christian name by either plaintiff or defendant in legal pro cess prevents the court from acquiring ju risdiction, there being no other description or identification and no appearance or waiv er of process ; Whitney v. Masemore, 75 Kan. 522, 89 Pac. 914, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 676, 121 Am. St. Rep. 442 ; Boynton v. Cham berlain, '38 Tex. 604; Thompson v. McCorkle, 1.36 Ind. 484, 34 N. E. 813, 36 N. E. 211, 43 Am. St. Rep. 334; but where the notice by publication was directed to Etta R. Fisher and - Fisher, her husband, it was held a sufficient description to indicate his iden tity ; Cruzen v. Stephens, 123 Mo. 337, 27 S. W. 557, •45 Am. St. Rep. 549.
Nicknames are not sufficient in process or pleading. They are names given in con tempt, derision or sportive familiarity; Ohlinann v. Sawmill Co., 222 Mo. 62, 120 S. W. 1155, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 432, 133 Am. St. Rep. 506, where process to recover taxes against land owned by Michael Ohlman, which described him as Mike Ohlman was held insufficient to give jurisdiction, Mike being held not a universally recognized ab breviation of Michael, but a mere diminutive or nickname. For a discussion of the origin
of nicknames and their development in many cases into surnames, see Fox-Davies and Carlyon-Britton on Names, 20, 24, 25.
Identity of name raises the presumption of identity of person, where the name is an unusual one and when there is some similar ity of business residence or the like, but not where the name is a common one and a num ber of persons bearing it live in the same 'place; Laws. Pres. Ev. 307; State v. Smith, 129 Ia. 709, 106 N. W. 187, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 539, 6 Ann. Cas. 1023. This presumption may be overcome by circumstances in the particular case ; Garrett v. State, 76 Ala. 18, where the qualifications of the rule are dis cussed; where the similarity of circum stances is not present the presumption fails; People v. Cline, 44 Mich. 290, 6 N. W. 671. And in many cases the identity of name has been treated as prima facie evidence of identity of person without reference to qual ifications; People v. Rolfe, 61 Cal. 540; Bayha v. Mumford, 58 Kan. 445, 49 Pac. 601 ; State v. McGuire, 87 Mo. 642; State v. Kel soe, 76 Mo. 505 ; and in such case the iden tity of the person is a question for the jury ; State v. Loser, 132 Ia. 419, 104 N. W. 337 ; and while it is not to be assumed as a mat ter of law ; Shuler v. State, 125 Ga. 778, 54 S. E. 689; State v. Lashus, 79 Me. 504, 11 Atl. 180; yet it is not error to charge the jury that identity is presumed in the ab sence of evidence to the contrary ; People v. Riley, 75 Cal. 98, 16 Pac. 544.
A person not having a fraudulent or crim inal purpose in so doing may enter into a contract by any name he may choose to as sume; Scanlan v. Grimmer, 71 Minn. 351, 74 N. W. 147, 70 Am. St. Rep. 326; Wake field v. Brown, 38 Minn. 361, 37 N. W. 788, 8 Am. St. Rep. 671; Den v. Peterson, 31 N. C. 184; Thomas v. Wyatt, 31 Mo. 188, 77 Am. Dec. 640. Under this rule, legal pro ceedings against a married woman under an assumed name have been held good after judgment ; Clark v. Clark, 19 Kan. 522; and obligations incurred by or with third parties under her maiden name are mutually bind ing; Lane v. Duchac, 73 Wis. 646, 41 N. W. 962; Bogart v. Woodruff, 96 Cal. 609, 31 Pac. 618; see Schou]. Dom. Rel. 40; until a decree in divorce giving a married woman leave to resume her maiden name goes into effect, or widowhood is succeeded by a new marriage, she keeps her former husband's surname; 2 P. D. 263.