LINTON V. FIRST NAT. BANK OF KITTANNING. S97 �be strange indeed could it be defeated by the suggestion that the sur- name bestowed upon her in marriage is not her husband's true name. The plea does not deny that Linton was at the time the bill was filed, and is now, the plaintiff's known and recognized sumame. If this be so, then it is wholly immaterial that the husband's inherited or original name was Spiller, At the common law a man may lawfully change bis name. He is bound by any contract into which he may enter his adopted or reputed name, and by his known and recognized name may sue and be sued. Doe v. Yates, 5 Barn. & Aid. 544 ; The King V. Inhahitants of Billingshurst, 3 M. & S. 250; Petrie v. Woodworth, 3 Gaines, (N. Y.) 219; In re Snook, 2 Pittsb. E. 26, The plea, I think, ie bad, and must be overruled. �2. Undoubtedly, under the ordinary appointment by the orphans' court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction conferred by the act of Mareh 29, 1832, (Pur. 411, pi. 31,) a guardian is entitled to the custody and care of all the estate, whether lying within the jurisdiction of the court or elsewhere in the eommonwealth, to which the ward may then be entitled or may subseqaently acquire. The appointment of James B. Neale as guardian of Miss Finlay, however, was not made under that act, but, unmistakably, under the act of April 25, 1850, (Id. pi. 33,) which is as follows : �" The orphans' court of each county in this eommonwealth shall have power to appoint guardians of the estates of minors residing ont of the eommon- wealth, in all cases where such minors are possessed of estates lying within the jurisdiction of aaid court, upon the petition of the minors, or any of their relatives or f riends, or any person interested in such estates, without requir- ing the said minors to appear in court to make choice of such guardians." �New, it may be that the orphans' court, in a proper case, bas authority, under the act of 1850, to appoint a general guardian of the entire estates within the eommonwealth of a non-resident minor, including both present and subsequent possessions. But, whether so or not, it is clear to me that the act authorizes a more limited ap- pointment. Be it observed, the appointment may be made upon the petition not only of the minor, or any relative or friend, but of "any person interested in such estates." Thus, the tenant of a particular tract of land belonging to a non-resident minor may petition under this act, but surely the order of appointment would be quoad hoc. It would be most unreasonable that upon such petition the court should appoint a general guardian, and it is inconceivable that the legisla- ture intended that all appointments under the act of 1850 should be y.l0,no.9— 57 ��� �
