t
for the change of name, in order to entitle him to the testator's
property. If this direction be neglected, could not the party next
benefited sue for it on that ground, and with success?

S.D.D.

_Change of Name_ (No. 16. p. 246.).--The doctrine, that a person
may change his surname without any formality whatever, has long
been "settled," and is by no means of so recent a date as your
correspondent supposes, which will presently appear.

In _Coke upon Littleton_, after some observations as to the change
of Christian name at confirmation, it is stated--

"And this doth agree with our ancient books, where it is
holden that a man may have divers names at divers times, but
not divers Christian names." (Vol. ii. p. 218. ed. 1818, by
J.H. Thomas.)

Reference is made to _Acc. 1 Com. Dig._ 19, 20., "Abatement" (E. 18,
19.); _Bac. Abr._ "Misnomer," B.; Rex _v._ Billinghurst, 3 _Maul.
& S._ 254.: but these passages throw no additional light upon our
immediate subject.

Sir Joseph Jekyll, in the case of Barlow _v._ Bateman, in 1730,
said,--

"I am satisfied the usage of passing Acts of Parliament for
the taking upon one a surname is but modern, and that any one
may take upon him what surname, and as many surnames, as he
pleases, without an Act of Parliament." (3 Peere Williams,
65.)

The decision of the Master of the Rolls in this case was afterwards
overruled by the House of Lords; but on a point not affecting the
accuracy of the observations I have quoted.

Lord Eldon, in the case of Leigh _v._ Leigh, decided in 1808, made
the following remarks:--

"An Act of Parliament, giving a new name, does not take away
the former name: a legacy given by that name might be taken.
In most of the Acts of Parliament for this purpose there is
a special proviso to prevent the loss of the former name. The
King's licence is nothing more than permission to take the
name, and does not give it. A name, therefore, taken in that
way is by voluntary assumption." (15 Ves. Jun., p. 100.)

This case decided that the assumption of a name by a person, by the
King's license, would not entitle him to take under a limitation in a
will "unto the first and nearest of my kindred, being male, and of my
name and blood." The same rule would no doubt hold as to a change of
name by Act of Parliament. (See Pyot _v._ Pyot, 1 _Ves. Sen._ 335.)

These extracts from the highest authoritie