LINTON V. FIRST NAT, BANK OF KITTANNING. 89,9; �ter's credit, and she checked them out at her own pleasure. It is true, the deed provides that her receipt shall be a discharge of the guardian or trustee, but this does not imply that the dividends shall pass through his hands, but rather the reverse. �The bank has filed an answer expressing its willingneas to pay the said dividends to Mrs. Linton if the court shall so direct, and sub- mitting itself to the decrees of the court. The way, therefore, is clear to grant the order asked for, unless it ought to be denied on account of the disclosures which James B. Neale has made to the court. As these disclosures relate largely to matters resting in mere rumor, unsupported by legal evidence, I refrain from the further mention of them ia this opinion. I indulge the hope that they have no foundation in truth, and that Mr. Linton may prove to be worthy of his wife's affection and confidence, which it is plain he now pos- sesses. The court is not called upon at this time to deal with the corpus of this stock, or make any decree affecting Mrs. Linton's es- tate generally. These bank dividends should be applied to her com- fortable maintenance, in any view of the case. Indeed, if the worst that has been said of her husband be true, this might be but an ad- ditional reason why she should have the immediate use and enjoy- ment of this income which her grandfather's beneficence has provided for her. �The preliminary injunction will be allowed, and it will be ordered that the dividends be paid or transmitted directly to Mrs. Linton. Let orders be drawn in conformity with the views expressed in thia opinion. �Note. It is not unlawful for persons to be known by any name he or she chooses, or to do business by any name, no fraud being practiced. Bell v. Sun Printing, etc., Co. 42 N. Y. Supr. Ct. 567 ; Clark v. Clark, 19 Kan. 522. See Cooper v. Burr, 45 Barb. 9; Eagleston. v. 8on, 5 Kobt. 640; Williams v. Bryant, 5 Mees. & W. 447. ��� �
