"From the facts and deductions here stated, it would seem
that the Master of the Rolls had good ground for making his
decree. The law, as it stands, however, had grown out of the
_practice_: and common prudence dictates, that the assumption
of a new surname should now be accompanied by such an
authority as may establish beyond all question the legality of
the act."
It must also be remembered, that a testator often directs that a
devisee shall procure the royal license or an Act of Parliament
for the change of name, in order to entitle him to the testator's
property. If this direction be neglected, could not the party next
benefited sue for it on that ground, and with success?