Scottish Court of Session Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Forlong, Petitioner [1880] ScotLR 17_647 (15 June 1880)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1880/17SLR0647.html
Cite as: [1880] SLR 17_647, [1880] ScotLR 17_647

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 647↓

Court of Session Inner House First Division.

Tuesday, June 15. 1880.

17 SLR 647

Forlong, Petitioner.

Subject_1Process
Subject_2Petition
Subject_3Authority to Change Surname.
Facts:

A petition for authority and sanction to change his surname by a person holding no public office refused as unnecessary.

Headnote:

Thomas Alexander George Forlong of South Erins, in Argyleshire, petitioned the Court to authorise him to assume and bear the name Thomas Alexander George Gordon, and to ordain the petition, with the deliverance thereon, to be recorded in the Books of Sederunt. The petitioner's mother Mrs Craufurd Gordon or Forlong, who died on 17th March 1880, had appointed him her sole residuary legatee, with the special request that he should assume the surname of “Gordon” instead of “Forlong” in remembrance of her. Mr Forlong held no public office, but he stated that he was “possessed of heritable property and other funds and effects acquired by him under the surname of ‘Forlong,’ and titles and other writs were conceived in his favour under that name. He had also been appointed as trustee and executor under various writs, and had been confirmed executor under the name of Forlong. He was also a commissioner of supply for the county of Argyle under the name of ‘Forlong.’ Moreover, that he was married, and had issue of the marriage, the births of his children being all registered under the name of Forlong.” In these circumstances the petitioner was desirous to obtain the sanction and authority of the Court “to carry out the said request by assuming the name of ‘Gordon’ instead of ‘Forlong,’ so that no doubt of the identity of the petitioner or of his family might thereafter arise; and that full effect might be given to titles, trusts, and other writs conceived in his favour under the name Forlong, and to deeds and other writs executed by him or his said family, or any of them, under the surname Gordon; and to acts and votes of the petitioner as a commissioner of supply, trustee, executor, or otherwise.” He stated that such authority had in many cases been given by the Court, and cited two instances in particular—those of Sempill, 30th June 1757, and of Mrs Elizabeth Grant and others, 10th June 1841—where the Court sanctioned a change of name by parties holding no public office. The Court having taken time to consider the petition, it was put out in Single Bills for advising.

At advising—

Judgment:

Lord President—The petitioner here asks the Court to authorise the alteration of his name from Forlong to Gordon. From the time when I first read the petition, I felt great doubt whether we have any proper jurisdiction in the matter. The petitioner holds no office under the Crown, nor any public office at all. The only reason why he desires to change his name is that the lady from whom he has derived considerable property expressed a wish that he should do so. Now, very many people change their names on coming to successions— e.g., heirs of entail—and if we were to grant the prayer of this petition we might have all such heirs of entail bringing similar applications for authority to change their names in terms of the deed of entail. That would be quite a novelty.

The petitioner refers to two precedents, and says there are many others, but he does not tell us what they are. One of these is more than a hundred years old, and occurred at a time when the Court was much more disposed to extend its jurisdiction than it is now; and though the other is more recent, it does not appear what induced the Court to grant the application. On the best consideration which I can give to the matter, I think it would be unwise, if not absolutely beyond our power, to entertain this application. The petitioner may, however, consider how far the Lyon King-at-Arms might be able to give him any aid.

Lord Deas—I am of the same opinion. I do not see what is to hinder the petitioner changing his name if he likes. Many people do so without our authority, and if we were to grant this application it might throw doubt on the present practice.

Lord Mure—This case is just the ordinary one where parties make a family arrangement as to a change of name on succession. It is frequent in cases of entail, and it is not necessary to come here for authority to carry such an arrangement into execution.

Page: 648↓

Lord Shand—I am of the same opinion. I should be for refusing this petition simply on the ground that it is unnecessary. As your Lordships have observed, it is visual to make changes of name without judicial sanction, and it would serve no good end to alter that practice. With reference to the case referred to, which occurred in 1841, I may observe that the petitioners who then asked sanction stated that they stood on the commission of the peace under the former name, and it may have been that fact which induced the Court to grant the application.

The Court refused the petition.

Counsel:

Counsel for Petitioner— Darling. Agents— Morton, Neilson, & Smart, W.S.
1880