JUDGES

OF THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DURING THE TIME OF THESE REPORTS.

The Hon. JOHN MARSHALL, Chief Justice.
The Hon. WILLIAM JOHNSON, Associate Justice.
The Hon. GABRIEL DUVALL, Associate Justice.
The Hon. JOSEPH STORY, Associate Justice.
The Hon. SMITH THOMPSON, Associate Justice.
The Hon. JOHN M'LEAN, Associate Justice.
The Hon. HENRY BALDWIN, Associate Justice.
JOHN M'PHERSON BERRIEN, Esq., Attorney-General
TENCH RINGGOLD, ESQ., Marshal.

WILLIAM THOMAS CARROLL, Esq., Clerk.

OF THE

Supreme Court of the United States,

AT

JANUARY TERM, 1830.

1*] *RICHARD R. KEENE, Plaintiff in

Error,

V.

MARGARET MEADE, Executrix of Richard
W. Meade, deceased, defendant in error.
Clerical error-middle letter of name-parol
and written evidence-practice.

A commission was issued in the name of Richard
M. Meade, the name of the defendant being Richard
W. Meade. This is a clerical error in making out
the commission, and does not affect the execution
of the commission.
[6]

It may well be questioned whether the middle letter of a name forms any part of the Christian name of a party. It is said the law knows only of one Christian name, and there are adjudged cases strongly countenancing, if not fully establishing, that the entire omission of a middle letter is not a misnomer or variance. [7]

A witness, the clerk of the plaintiff, examined under a commission, stated the payment of a sum of money to have been made by him to the defendant, and that the defendant at his request made an entry in the plaintiff's rough cash book, writing his name at full length, and stating the sum paid to him, not so much for the sake of the receipt, as in order for him, the witness, to become acquainted with his signature, and the way of spelling his name. It is not necessary to produce the book in which the entry was made, and parol evidence of the payment of the money is legal. It cannot be laid down as a universal rule that where written evidence of a fact exists, all parol evidence of the same fact is excluded. [7] It is not known that there is any practice in the execution or return of a commission requiring a certificate, in whose handwriting the depositions returned with the commission were taken down.

All that the commission requires is that the [*2 commissioners, having reduced the depositions taken by them to writing, should send them with the commission under their hands and seals to the judges of the court out of which the commission issued. But it is immaterial in whose handwriting the depositions are; and it cannot be required that they should certify any immaterial fact. [8]

A certificate by the commissioners that A. B., whom they were going to employ as a clerk had been sworn, admits of no other reasonable interpretation than that A. B. was the person appointed by them as clerk. [9]

It is not necessary to return with the commission the form of the oath administered by the commissioners to the witnesses. When the commissioners

certify the witnesses were sworn and the interrogatories annexed to the commission were all put to them, it is presumed that they were sworn and examined as to all their knowledge of the facts. [10]

ERROW to ingt District

RROR to the Circuit Court for the County

bia.

In the Circuit Court the testator of the defendant in error, Richard W. Meade, instituted an action against Richard R. Keene, the plaintiff in error, for money lent and advanced to him in Spain, where Mr. Meade, at the time of the loan, resided and carried on business as a merchant. In order to establish the claims of the plaintiff below, a commission was issued to Cadiz; and under the same, certain depositions were taken, which were returned with the commission. The commission was directed to the commissioners in a case stated to be depending NOTE.-Name, omission of, or error in, middle iam Robinson, the omission of the middle letter name, not material, nor a misnomer.-Idem sonans. was held to be an immaterial variance. Franklin -Initials. The addition of Senior or Junior v. Talmadge, 5 John. 84, 4 Watts, 329, 14 Pet. forms no part of the name. 322, Willes, 654, 1 Youngs, 602.

The law knows but one christian name, and the omission or insertion of the middle name, or of the initial letter of that name, in a conveyance, is immaterial. It is competent for the party to show that he is known as well without as with the middle name. Games v. Dunn, 14 Pet. 322; affirming, 1 McLean, 321; Meade v. Keene, 3 Cranch, C. C. 51.

A bond with sureties and the oath of office of a receiver of public moneys, subscribed "B. F. E.," where the commission has issued to "B. E.," are valid. 2 Op. Att.-Gen. 332.

"Jr." is not an essential addition to, or a part of a name. Clark v. Gilbert, Burn. 207.

An assignment by P. P. Pitchlynn of a reservation in a treaty in favor of Peter Pitchlynn, where there is no doubt of the identity of the person, is good, as the law knows of but one christian name. 4 Op. Att.-Gen. 467.

The plaintiff declared by the name of William T. Robinson, and gave in evidence a deed to Will

A middle name, or initial, is no part of a name, and may be disregarded. The law knows only one christian name. Milk v. Christie, 1 Hill, 102; Roosevelt v. Gardenier, 2 Cow. 463; Franklin v. Talmadge, 5 John. 84; Rex v. Newman, 1 Ld. Raym. 562.

The addition of "Senior" or "Junior" is mere matter of description, and forms no part of the name. It is a casual and temporary designation. People v. Collins, 7 John. 549; Fleet v. Youngs, 11 Wend. 522; Lepiot v. Browne, 1 Salk. 7, 10 Mass. 203.

Where a man is known with the addition of Junior, the omission of that addition in an indictment is not, in a collateral proceeding, conclusive that he was not intended. Jackson v. Prevost, 2 Caines, 164.

The word "junior" is no part of a name, but is merely descriptive of the person. Its omission from the name of a grantee is merely presumptive evidence that the grantee was the father, and not