THE SCRIVENER What’S in a Name? by Scott Moïse
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE SCRIVENER What’s in a Name? By Scott Moïse ‘Tis but thy name that is my enemy; DCN, 2019 WL 6318778, at *8 (D.S.C. Thou art thyself, though not a Montague. Nov. 26, 2019) (“While plaintiff pro- What’s Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot, moted Sink Jr. as a lawyer working Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part for Sink PA using his given name, Belonging to a man. O, be some other name! it certainly never acquiesced to his What’s in a name? That which we call a rose use of the GEORGE SINK marks to By any other name would smell as sweet; promote his own independent legal So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d, services.”); Hammonds v. Jackson, No. Retain that dear perfection which he owes 1:13-CV-711-MHS-WEJ, 2015 WL Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name, 12867065, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 16, And for that name which is no part of thee 2015) (“Despite the informality, for Take all myself. convenience the Court generally refers to these unrelated persons William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet (Act II, Scene I, lines 38–49). by their forenames.”). Courts have referred to last Poor Juliet. If Romeo had only been and called in the community in names as “last names,” “surnames,” named Romeo Brown or Romeo which he lives and is best known.’” “family names,” and “patronym- McGillicudy or anything but Romeo Stevenson v. Ellisor, 270 S.C. 560, 562, ic” names. See Washington v. Saul, Montague, he could have married 243 S.E.2d 445, 446 (1978). No. CV 1:19-1825-SVH, 2020 WL Juliet and lived happily ever after. 3428852, at *1 n.1 (D.S.C. June 22, Instead, well, you know what hap- What are the components of a 2020) (“These records are likely pened: poison and a dagger, all be- name? those of another individual with cause of their names. Names do not Most people have three names: Plaintiff’s first andlast name . .”); usually cause such tragic results, first, middle, and last. Earlier cases United States v. Haas, 986 F.3d 467 but even in our legal profession, referred to first names as “Chris- n.1 (4th Cir. 2021) (“We refrain from they can still create a lot of trouble. tian” or “baptismal” names. See, providing a surname to protect her Although it was about three e.g., William Alexander & Bros. v. privacy.”); City Council of Charleston, centuries too late to help Juliet, Davidson & Davidson, 27 S.C.L. 49, 15 S.C.L. at 490 (“[T]his name may the South Carolina Supreme Court 51 (S.C. App. L. 1841). However, as be as often changed as the patro- actually defined “what’s in a name”: the court of appeals later noted, nymic . .”). Note that “patronym- “The word ‘name’ is thus defined “[T]here is no union here between ic” refers to the name derived from in Century Dictionary: ‘A word by Church and State, and no obliga- the father. Children may also have which a person or thing is denot- tion on parents to baptize their the mother’s name, which is called ed; the word or words by which an children.” City Council of Charleston a “matronymic” name, or a hyphen- individual person or thing, or class v. King, 15 S.C.L. 487, 489–90 (S.C. ated version of both parents’ last of persons or things, is designat- App. L. & Eq. 1828). Now, courts names. I located no case, anywhere ed, and distinguished from others; just refer to a person’s first name in the United States, that used the appellational denomination; des- simply as “first name,” “given term “matronymic” when referring ignation.’ ” Koth v. Pallachucola Club, name,” or “forename.” See, e.g., Wade to a last name that was derived 79 S.C. 514, 517–18, 61 S.E. 77, 78 v. Luerre, No. 619CV03576JFAKFM, from the mother, although courts (1908) (holding that taxpayers—not 2020 WL 6828660, at *1 (D.S.C. Oct. have addressed issues related to county tax officials— are supposed 27, 2020) (“The letter further sought a last name that came from the to unravel complicated inheritanc- to re-add Nurse Brezzle as a party mother. See, e.g., Wilson v. McDonald, es that cause errors of property if at some point during litigation 393 S.C. 419, 420, 713 S.E.2d 306, owners’ names on deeds). Later, the the plaintiff was able to determine 307 (Ct. App. 2011) (“Wilson named supreme court was more specific: Nurse Brezzle’s first name.”); George their daughter without McDonald’s “Generally, a person’s name is ‘the Sink PA Injury Lawyers v. George Sink input, giving the daughter the last designation by which he is known II Law Firm LLC, No. 2:19-CV-01206- name ‘Wilson.’ ”). 60 SC Lawyer Middle names, to my knowl- the word “name” in the election edge, have been called simply statute was not limited to the given “middle names” or—when refer- name. However, the court did not ring to a woman’s middle name interpret “Nancy” to be a nickname, that was her last name before she but instead determined that it was was married—“maiden names.” a “derivative” of Ferdinan: “Re- See, e.g., North v. Dorn VA Hosp., No. spondent’s given name ‘Ferdinan’ CV 3:20-3952-JMC-SVH, 2020 WL contains the first three letters of 6802954, at *3 (D.S.C. Nov. 19, 2020) the name ‘Nan cy.’ It is therefore (“Plaintiff’s middle name is some- a derivative, albeit a less common times spelled ‘Neil’ in his complaint one, just as ‘Ric k’ is a derivative of . .”); Sanders v. Smith, 431 S.C. 605, ‘Ric hard’ and ‘Su e’ is a derivative 614, 848 S.E.2d 604, 608 (Ct. App. of ‘Su san.’ ” Id. at 563, 243 S.E.2d at 2020) (“Wife failed to show Hus- 446 (spacing in original). However, band committed fraud upon the the court held that nicknames, un- court by suing her in her maiden like derivatives, could not be used name and misrepresenting her on the ballots. Now, the Election address.”). Commission allows a candidate to Courts have not always treat- include a nickname “if it does not ed middle names with the respect exceed 15 letters, does not imply they deserve. The United States professional or social status, is a Supreme Court once stated that derivative of your given name prop- “[t]he law knows of but one Chris- erly acquired or bears no relation tian name, and the omission or to your given name but it is used in insertion of the middle name, or good faith.” S.C. Election Comm’n, of the initial letter of that name, is “Candidate Dos and Donts,” https:// immaterial; and it is competent for www.scvotes.gov/candidate-dos- the party to show that he is known and-donts (2019). In the end, Nancy as well without as with the middle Stevenson won both her lawsuit name.” Games v. Stiles ex dem. Dunn, and the election, becoming the first 39 U.S. 322, 326, 10 L. Ed. 476 (1840); woman in South Carolina to hold see also Conrad v. Griffey, 52 U.S. statewide office. 480, 489, 13 L. Ed. 779 (1850) (“The Nicknames most often seem to middle name forms no part of the cause trouble in cases in which a Christian name of a party.”). party is trying to keep a nickname from being mentioned at trial. Do nicknames have any legal Evidence concerning a defendant’s significance? nickname is not prejudicial when Black’s Law Dictionary defines used to prove something at issue “nickname” as “[a] short name; in a trial, such as the identification one nicked or cut off for the sake of the defendant. See, e.g., State v. of brevity, without conveying an Day, 341 S.C. 410, 422, 535 S.E.2d idea of opprobrium, and frequently 431, 437 (2000). However, use of a evincing the strongest affection or nickname usually cannot be exces- the most perfect familiarity.” sive or repetitious. Id. at 422, 535 In Stevenson v. Ellisor, 270 S.C. S.E.2d at 437 (holding that pros- 560, 561, 243 S.E.2d 445, 445 (1978), ecutor’s referencing defendant’s a candidate for lieutenant gover- nickname of “outlaw” 23 times nor, brought a declaratory judg- during closing argument in mur- ment action to determine whether der prosecution was excessive and she was allowed to use the name repetitious and deprived defendant “Nancy” rather than her given of due process of law, as the nick- name “Ferdinan” on the general name was not used to prove any election ballot. The South Carolina matter in controversy.) Election Commission insisted on In a somewhat related is- “Ferdinan,” but the supreme court sue, in Johnson v. McCall, No. CA disagreed, stating that “[w]e do 4:08-3840-CMC-TER, 2010 WL not believe that the word ‘name’ is 972702, at *9 (D.S.C. Feb. 9, 2010), synonymous with ‘Christian name’ report and recommendation adopted, or ‘given name,’ ” and therefore, No. CA 4:08-3840-CMC-TER, 2010 March 2021 61 WL 960335 (D.S.C. Mar. 12, 2010), tion or complaint, if the misnomer federal courts have allowed parties the defendant asked that the court causes prejudice to the defendant, even to proceed to trial without order parties to use only his birth the court may decide to dismiss the being identified by name by looking name, Preston Devron Johnson, pleading.