_ 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.
Pages:
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54