State ex rel. Rainey v. Crowe

• Decision Date: 15 September 1964
• Docket Number: No. 32015,32015
• Citation: 382 S.W.2d 38
• Parties: STATE of Missouri ex rel. Robert RAINEY M.D., Relator-Appellant, v. James E. CROWE, Chairman, Herman Willer, Arthur K. Atkinson and E. Kenneth Hagemann, all of the members of the Board of Election Commissioners for the City of St. Louis, Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 38

382 S.W.2d 38

STATE of Missouri ex rel. Robert RAINEY M.D., Relator-Appellant, v. James E. CROWE, Chairman, Herman Willer, Arthur K. Atkinson

and E. Kenneth Hagemann, all of the members of the

Board of Election Commissioners for the

City of St. Louis, Respondents.

No. 32015.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Sept. 15, 1964.

James A. Stemmler, St. Louis, for relator-appellant.

Thomas J. Neenan, City Counselor, David S. Hemenway, Associate City Counselor, St. Louis, for respondents.

RUDDY, Presiding Judge.

This is a proceeding for mandamus instituted by relator in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis against respondents as members of and constituting the Board of Election Commissioners for the City of St. Louis. The purpose of relator's mandamus action is to compel respondents to publish and to print on the sample and official ballots the name of relator, a duly filed candidate for the office of Coroner of the City of St. Louis, as 'Robert Rainey M.D.' Relator appeals from an adverse ruling in the trial court.

Relator, a duly licensed physician, claims he is entitled to mandamus to compel respondents to publish and print his name on the ballot in the November 1964 General Election as Robert Rainey M.D.

The facts are not in dispute. Relator filed his Declaration of Candidacy for the Office of Coroner of the City of St. Louis, Missouri. The primary election for said office was held August 4th, 1964, and the general election for said office is to be held November 3rd, 1964. We are informed that relator by virtue of the primary election result is now the nominee for said office of the party upon whose ticket he declared as a candidate and that his name as such candidate shall be placed on the official ballot in the election to be held November 3rd, 1964.

Relator is a graduate, with a diploma and degree of Doctor of Medicine, of Washington University School of Medicine and is a duly licensed physician under the provisions of Chapter 334 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri 1959. On or about May 20, 1964, relator submitted to respondents an affidavit stating that the name by which he is known is Robert Rainey M.D. and accompanied it with a letter demanding that 'Robert Rainey M.D.' is the name that should be published under the provisions of Sec. 120.390 RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., and the name that should be on the official and sample ballots under the provisions of Secs. 120.420, 120.441, 120.450 and 111.420 RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. The respondents refused this demand and still continue to refuse the demand and take the position that relator's name should be published and printed as 'Robert Rainey.'

Relator testified in the trial below that he is known and has been known in recent years by the name of Robert Rainey M.D. and that the majority of documents, legal instruments and written communications which bore his name in recent years listed it as Robert Rainey M.D. He said this was always his practice in professional instances and usually in nonprofessional instances. He further testified that all documents or communications signed by him were signed under the name of Robert Rainey M.D. and this was done whether or not the document or other paper listed his name as such. This was true with the exception of certain stock dividend checks where the companies had refused to put the M.D. on the stock certificate, in which instances he signed both 'Robert Rainey' and 'Robert Rainey M.D.' as an endorsement on the checks. In his testimony he said that people orally addressed him as Dr. Rainey or Dr. Robert Rainey or, among friends, as Bob Rainey, but that 'Robert Rainey M.D.' was the name by which he was formally known among the people in the community. Relator introduced into evidence the signature cards of bank accounts from several banks, credit cards from several oil companies, insurance policies and other documents and matter which listed his name as Robert Rainey M.D. The documents and matter which he had signed were signed Robert Rainey M.D. He also introduced into evidence Republican and Democratic sample ballots printed by respondents for the 1964 primary election in St. Louis. The purpose of this was to show that some of the candidates' nicknames had been printed in parentheses on said ballots and that the names of some of the women on the ballots sometimes included in parenthesis the designation 'Mrs.' followed by her husband's first name. He also testified that to the best of his knowledge most of the other physicians and surgeons in the community commonly used the initials 'M.D.' after their last names in professional or nonprofessional instances.

In 1959 relator was a candidate for membership on the St. Louis Board of Education. He said that after he filed his declaration of candidacy he demanded of the Board of Election Commissioners that they publish and print on the ballot his name as 'Robert Rainey M.D.' His demand was refused. However, he brought no suit at that time to require his name to be published and printed as 'Robert Rainey M.D.' There appears in the white pages of the 1964 Telephone Directory for the City of St. Louis the following names and addresses: 'Rainey, Robt. D. 9718 Lanier; Rainey, Robt. E. 1527 Penrose; Rainey, Robt. MD (relator herein) City office 100 N Euclid Av, Residence 5165 Lindell.' The yellow pages of said telephone directory list the relator and all other physicians and surgeons under a column headed 'Physicians & Surgeons--M.D.'

Relator further testified that he receives written communications addressed to him as 'Dr. Robert Rainey', 'Dr. Robert Rainey M.D.', and 'Robert Rainey M.D.', the majority of which he said were addressed 'Robert Rainey M.D.' The newspaper published by the School Board of which he is a member and which is distributed to 100,000 public school children lists his name as 'Dr. Robert Rainey.' His name appears on the voter registration card in the office of the Board of Election Commissioners in the City of St. Louis as 'Robert Rainey.' He explains this by saying that he originally registered before he became a physician and surgeon and before he became known as 'Robert Rainey M.D.' adding, that after he moved to his present address at 5165 Lindell he sent a letter to the respondents about March 1964 informing them of a change of address and he signed the letter 'Robert Rainey M.D.' He said the respondents acknowledged this communication with a letter addressed to him as 'Robert Rainey M.D.' He admitted that at no time did he make a specific request to the respondents to have his name changed on the voter registration card to Robert Rainey M.D. He has never taken legal steps to change his name to add the 'M.D.' and he further testified that his wife is known as Sharon Rainey. It is admitted by the relator that the said respondents in refusing the demand to have his name printed as requested acted in good faith.

Relator makes two principal contentions: (1) that respondents are required to publish and print on the general election ballot relator's name as 'Robert Rainey M.D.' because the election statutes require the publishing and printing of a candidate's 'name' and 'Robert Rainey M.D.' is relator's name under the law of Missouri; (2) that respondents are required to publish and print on the election ballot relator's name as 'Robert Rainey M.D.' because such publication and printing is a 'public listing or display' within the meaning of Sec. 334.047 RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. In this connection relator makes an alternative point, that '* * * if it could be said that, for some reason, the statute refers only to 'public listings and displays' having some connection of a medical nature, the relator still should prevail in this suit.' In support of this relator points out that he is running for the office of Coroner of the City of St. Louis and that certain of the duties of said office are now of a distinctly medical nature and that under the generally accepted view that the Coroner should be a physician, the voters are entitled to know which of the candidates is a physician.

The initial step taken by relator in pursuit of his quest for the office of Coroner was to comply with Sec. 120.340 RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. which in part reads as follows: 'The name of no candidate shall be printed upon any official ballot at any primary election unless such candidate has on or before the last Tuesday of April preceding such primary filed a written declaration, * * * stating his full name, residence, office for which he proposes as a candidate, the party upon whose ticket he is to be a candidate, that if nominated and elected to such office he will qualify, * * *.' All other statutory requirements concerning the publishing and printing of the ballots refer to the 'name' of the candidate. Illustrative of this are Secs. 111.410, 111.420, 120.380, 120.420, 120.450, 120.441, 120.540, 121.100 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri 1959, V.A.M.S.

The word 'name' as used in the statutes providing for the publishing and printing of a candidate's name should be taken in its plain ordinary and usual sense as provided in Sec. 1.090 RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. and as said in the case of State ex rel. Lane v. Corneli, 347 Mo. 932, 149 S.W.2d 815, 1. c. 821.

The common law recognized only one Christian name or given name and one family surname. State v. Hands, Mo., 260 S.W.2d 14; Nolan v. Taylor, 131 Mo. 224, 32 S.W. 1144; Carlton v. Phelan, 100 Fla. 1164, 131 So. 117; Feldman v. Silva, 54 R.I. 202, 171 A. 922; 65 C.J.S. Names Sec. 3, p. 2.

It has been held that the middle name or initial of an individual is unimportant and forms no part of the Christian name. State v. Hands, supra; Miller v. Medley, 236 Mo. 694, 139 S.W. 158. However, in modern times recognition is frequently given to one or more middle given names or initials. In the case of State ex rel. Lane v. Corneli, supra, the Supreme Court in defining the meaning of the word 'name' said (149 S.W.2d at l. c. 821) '* * *...