TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Martin

State v. Martin, 10 Mo. 391 (1847)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 15, 1847
Judges
McBride
Citations
10 Mo. 391
Headnotes
'The middle name of a person is no part of the Christian name.
Summary
ERROR to Platte Circuit Court. That it is not necessary to set out all the names of tile defendant; it is sufficient to set-out one vf the Christian names. The plea admits that the name set out is the true name, but is not all the name. This is unnecessary, and the plea was bad. The defendant insists that although the State might have replied that defendant was known as well by the name of “ William” as “ John William,” yet the plea being good on its face, the Court below committed no error in overruling the demurrer. See 1 Chitty’s Pleading. 1 Chitty’s Crim. Law.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — McBride

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

McBride, J., delivered the opinion of the Court'.-

Martin was indicted by the grand jury of Platte County for gaming,, by the name of William Martin. He pleaded in abatement that “ he-was named and is called John William Martin,” &c. To this plea the-Circuit Attorney filed a general demurrer,, which was overruled by the Circuit Court,, and the ease is brought here by the' State on writ of error.

It has been- held, and we think correctly, that the middle name of an individual forms no part of the Christian name. If this be correct, then the indictment cannot be sustained, as it only sets out the middle name,- and does not give the Christian name at all. Difficulties- and confusion frequently arise growing out of the multiplicity of names given to individuals, and by which they are known : to obviate this-, they should be named as they are generally called in society, and then if they plead in' abatement, the plaintiff can reply the fact and maintain his action. See 5 D. & E. 195, where the defendants’ Christian names- were transposed*. and the transposition held bad on demurrer-

judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1876–1877: 31880–1881: 11882–1883: 21898–1899: 11906–1907: 11940–1941: 11952–1953: 118762026peak 1876 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Burroughs v. State17 Fla. 643 (1880)
  2. State v. Hands260 S.W.2d 14 (Mo. 1953)
  3. Phillips v. Evans64 Mo. 17 (1876)
  4. Turner v. Gregory52 S.W. 234 (Mo. 1899)
  5. Choen v. State52 Ind. 347 (1876)
  6. Howard v. Brown95 S.W. 191 (Mo. 1906)

Most recent

  1. State v. Hands260 S.W.2d 14 (Mo. 1953)
  2. State ex rel. Lane v. Corneli149 S.W.2d 815 (Mo. 1941)
  3. Howard v. Brown95 S.W. 191 (Mo. 1906)
  4. Turner v. Gregory52 S.W. 234 (Mo. 1899)
  5. State v. Black12 Mo. App. 531 (1882)
  6. State v. Feeny13 R.I. 623 (1882)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list