The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1916-1920, 1919-05-19
The Right to Change Your Name.

ut Is manifestly unfair" says JUS
tlce BENEDICT of the Supreme Court
In denying the petition Of sixteen
Kannofskys to change their name to
Kenyon, ito the families whose sur
names are thus appropriated that
persons having no right to use such
names should be allowed to do So"
While this is only one Of several rea-
sons given by Justice BENEDICT for
denying the petition, 1t will be Of in
terest, IL not of weight, in England.
Over there 1t has been decided. in the
case of Du BoULAY VS.. DU BoULAY,
that the law does not recognize the
absolute right Of any person in any
particular name to the extent Of pre-
venting another from assuming the
same name: a decision which carries
out to the very end the general hold
ing OF the common law that man
may use what surname he pleases.
American jurists profess generally
to believe that the common law on
this subject Is still In force, yet In
stances have been numerous In recent
years of judges rejecting the petitions
Of citizens who wished to be Off with
the old name and on with a new. A
certain Rathowsky could not become
a Roth, because the reasons assigned
for the change were "illusory," in the
courts opinion. Another judge re
fused to turn Pavlovsky into Pawley,
because convenience or facility OF
utterance Is not sufficient reason" A
Rosenbaum who wished to bloom out
as Rose was disappointed, the court
refusing to believe that the mere fact
that the name Rosenbaum was Ger
manic in its origin was legal cause to
warrant a change.
The Kannofskys, wishing to be
Kenyons, found in the common law nc
barrier to their ambition. Legally @
we'll meaning John Smith may take
the name Of Windermere Montmorenc,
Just Us innocently as a Thomas W
Wilson or a Stephen G. Cleveland oil
a Hiram L. Grant may appear In the
hall Of fame under a different form
of name. Well meaning, we say, be
cause there must be no intention t.
defraud. Custom says that a mar
shall take his fathers name, but Gus
| tom does not say that he must keel
1t If he sees a name that he likes bet
ter. Unfortunately for the Kannof
skys, the Legislature Of this State pu
| In the Code Of Civil Procedure a pro
vision with respect to the action o.
the courts on petitions for changes Of
family name:
III the court to which the petition
is presented Is satisfied thereby. or
by the affidavit and certificate pre-
scented Herewith. that the petition
Is true, and that there Is no reason
able objection to the change Of name
proposed, and If the petition be to
change the name OF an infant that
the interests OF the infant will be sub
stantially promoted by the change.
the court shall make an order au-
thorizing the petitioner to assume the
name proposed on day specified
therein, not less thnn thitty days
after the entry of the order"
mo reasonable objection" Their
is the rub. Justice BENEDICT seem
to find reasonable objections Of thre
kinds. He says It is his intention t
prevent persons from concealing thei
race, extraction or nativity" b
changing their names. He declare
that. while the petitioners plead tina
their name results in confusion, "sti
greater confusion would ensue If the
should drop the name by which the
have been known" And, thirdly
there is the unfairness, as Judge Ben
EDIcr sees 1t, to families whose sui
names are appropriated"
i The legal method Of changing name
was put into the code because, as tn
Court of Appeals once said, 1t
speedy. definite and a matter Of rec
ord. 1T does not repeal the commo
law by implication or otherwise" sal
that decision. "but gives an additions
method of effecting a change G
name" So there Is hope for tn
Kannofskys If they wish to assum
another name after the common LAY
method.