A grant of land under an assumed name will pass title; and evidence is admissible to prove identity ; Wakefield v. Brown, 38 Minn. 361, 37 N. W. 788, 8 Am. St. Rep. 671. The omission or mistake of a Christian name of the person to whom it is made (if he can be Identified) will not avoid a patent; North western F. E. Co. v. Fire Extinguisher Co., 1 Ban. & A. 177, Fed. Cas. No. 10,337; or a grant; 2 Co. Litt. 255; or a devise; 5 Co. 68; 2 Atk. 372. Apparently it was earlier held that an omission or mistake in the Christian name of the grantee rendered the grant void; Cro. Eliz. 328; Bac. Max. 107.
When a person uses a name in making a contract under seal, he will not be per mitted to say that it is not his name : as, if he sign and seal a bond "A and B" (being his own and his partner's name), and he had no authority from his partner to make such a deed, he cannot deny that his name is A and B ; 1 T. Raym. 2 ; 1 Salk. 214. And if a man describes himself in the body of a deed by the name of James, and signs it John, he cannot, on being sued by the latter name, plead that his name is James ; 3 Taunt. 505; Cro. Enz. 897, n. a. See 3 P. & D. 271; 11 Ad. & E. 594; Prelss v. Le Poidevin, 19 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 123. A man may sue by the name by which he has been known from childhood, instead of by that given him by his parents; Donaldson v. Donaldson, 31 Wkly. Law Bul. (Ohio) 102.
The right to the exclusive use of a name in connection with a trade or business is familiar to the law ; and any person using that name, after a relative right of this description has been acquired by another, is considered guilty of a fraud, or at least an invasion of another's rights, and renders himself liable to an action, or be may be restrained from the use of the name by in junction. But the mere assumption of a
name which is the patronymic of a family by a stranger who has never been called by that name is a grievance to the family for which the law affords no redress; L. R. 2 P. C. 441. See L. R. 2 Ch. 307. A name may be a trade-mark ; L. R. 10 Ch. D. 436; 1 Eq. 518; 13 Beay. 209; Wolfe v. Barnett, 24 La. Ann. 97, 13 Am. Rep. 111. A person cannot, however, have an exclusive right of trade-mark in a name as against all others bearing the same name, and honestly using the name in competition, unless the defend ant uses the same brand or stamp in con nection with the name; Gilman v. Hunne well, 122 Mass. 139; McLean v. Fleming, 96 U. S. 245, 24 L. Ed. 828; Howe v. Mach. Co., 50 Barb. (N. Y.) 236. But such exclusive right to a name may be acquired as against a corporation called, by the same name.
"Dear Sir," at the commencement of a letter sent to one of the contracting parties which contains the terms of a contract, will be read as the name of that party so as to — be a good note of the contract, if the letter is enclosed in an envelope addressed to that party ; [1897] 1 Q. B. 688.
See an article on personal names by G. S. Arnold, 15 Y. L. J. 227; also an extensive note on names in 14 L. R. A. 690.
See ELECTION; IDENTITATE NOMINIS; TRADE MARK; SIGNATURE ; MISNOMER.