State v. Smith

Supreme Court of Arkansas

State v. Smith

7 Ark. 622

Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided January 15, 1852·Published

Opinion

Mr. Justice Soott

delivered the opinion-of the Court.

The law knows of but one Christian name. The entire omission of a middle letter is not a misnomer or variance. (Litt. 3 a. 1 Lord Raym. 563. 5 John. R. 84. 4 John. R. 119 note a.) “The middle letter is immaterial, and a wrong letter may be stricken out or disregarded.” (Keene v. Meade, 3 Peters R. p. 9.) The demurrer ought to have been sustained and judgment rendered accordingly.

Let the judgment be reversed, and the cause be remanded,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Soott

delivered the opinion-of the Court.

The law knows of but one Christian name. The entire omission of a middle letter is not a misnomer or variance. (Litt. 3 a. 1 Lord Raym. 563. 5 John. R. 84. 4 John. R. 119 note a.) “The middle letter is immaterial, and a wrong letter may be stricken out or disregarded.” (Keene v. Meade, 3 Peters R. p. 9.) The demurrer ought to have been sustained and judgment rendered accordingly.

Let the judgment be reversed, and the cause be remanded,

State v. Smith, 7 Ark. 622 (Ark. 1852).

Pincite

7 Ark. 622 (State v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.