
    THE PEOPLE ex rel. HAASE v. GERMAN HOSPITAL.
    
      N. Y. Supreme Court, First District; Chambers,
    
    
      June, 1880.
    Mandamus.—Registry of Deaths.
    A mandamus may issue to compel hospital officers to correct a certificate of death of a patient, which they have filed with the board of health.
    
      So held, where the widow needed an official certificate of the registry of his death in order to entitle her to a legacy left to her in a foreign country, and the hospital in which her husband died, had, in their certificate, inserted an alias under which he passed, instead of his true name, and erroneously stated him to be unmarried, and also incorrectly stated his age.
    The necessity, in a foreign country, of producing an official certificate from those in charge of the registry of deaths, in order to prove a death which occurred in this country, may be shown, on such an application, by the certificate of the consul-general of that country.
    Order to show cause why a mandamus should not issue.
    
      This proceeding was instituted by the relator, Anais Haase, against the German Hospital and Dr. Degener, to compel them to correct the certificate of her husband’s death, which they had filed with the board of health.
    The facts presented by the relator’s affidavit were in brief as follows :
    In 1854, Charles Haase, a German, and a barber by occupation, took up his residence in Paris, and in 1856 he there entered into a civil contract of marriage with Anais Hautemale, the present relator. He there, as is frequently the custom of Germans settling in France,; conducted his business under his first name, Charles. In 1862 he abandoned his wife and went to London, there passing under the name of Mr. Charles, and after-wards under the name of Horace Charles D’Armet de Fonger. Under this last name he married one Jessica M. De St. Croix, whom he shortly afterwards deserted, and thereupon came to this city, where he assumed the name of Hector Carlos, Baron de Maincey, which he a f terwards changed to Doctor Hector Carlos. On March 12, 1880, he died suddenly in the German Hospital, and the officers of that institution, acting on statements made by him, filed with the board of health the certificate of death, required by statute, in which they gave his name as Hector Carlos, his age as forty-five, and stated that he was unmarried. His true age was forty-eight.
    His identity, under his different names, was established by the affidavit of the relator, who had met and corresponded with him after his coming to New York, and the affidavit of an old acquaintance, who had known him under both names, and also by papers found in his possession at his death, and by the correspondence between himself and his wife, and between his wife and the woman he married in England.
    A legacy was left to the relator in France, but to entitle her to receive it, it was necessary for her to prove her husband’s death.
    A certificate by the consul-general of France was produced, to the effect that an official certificate of the authorities in charge of the registry of deaths was necessary in France to prove the decease of a person dying in a foreign country.
    The hospital authorities, upon being applied to, refused to rectify their certificate, whereupon this present order was obtained, requiring them to show cause why a mandamus should not issue.
    
      Lockwood & Lockwood, for the relator.
    I. This is a proper case for the issuance of the writ. A wrong has been done, to rectify which no other remedy exists. The French law requires death to be proved by an extract from the official record (Civil Code, c. 4).
    II. Until the death is so proven her marriage or that of her son is impossible {Civil Code, tit. V.).
    III. A party is entitled to a mandamus when a legal right exists and his legal remedy is inadequate (Wood on Mandamus, 27; People v. Asten, 49 How. Pr. 406; Dillon on Mun. Cor. 2 ed. § 616; People v. Commissioners of Emigration, 22 How. Pr. 291; People v. Collins, 19 Wend. 56; People v. Mayor, 10 Wend. 395). An officer may be compelled by the writ to act, although he might be liable for neglect of duty (McCullough v. Mayor, 23 Wend. 458).
    IV. This application is correct in not asking to have the writ issue against the board of health. The act of 1853 (c. 75) and the act of 1866 (c. 74) makes it the duty of the attending physician to certify to the board of health the “name, age, &c., of the deceased as near as the same be ascertained,” and merely requires the board to ‘ ‘ number and record the deaths ” “as far as ’ ’ “reported.”
    V. The words “ as near as the same be ascertained ” require the physician to procure and act upon the best evidence.
    VI. The law looks upon an assumed name as indicia of fraud. A person can only change his name by an act of the legislature, or by a petition to the court of common pleas. One suing in a false name has no standing in court (Count Joannes’ Case). By a name in law must be understood the Christian name, as received in baptism, prefixed to the surname received from the party’s ancestor (Petition of Snook, 2 Hilt. 566; People v. Cook, 14 Barb. 259).
    
      S. Kattfmann, for defendants, made no opposition.
   Lawrence, J.

This is a most singular case, and is a fitting illustration of the fact that truth is stranger than fiction.

On the papers before me I have no room for doubting that the deceased Hector Carlos was Charles Haase, the husband of the relator, wjio abandoned her in 1862, in the city of Paris, and went to London, where, in 1865, under the name of Fouger, he married another person, whom he in turn abandoned during the same year. Shortly afterwards he came to this city and assumed the name of Hector Carlos, Baron de Manicy, which he afterwards changed to Hector Carlos. Under the latter name he passed until his death, at the Herman' Hospital, on March 12,1880, and his death is recorded on the books of the hospital and in the registry of the board of health under the name of Hector Carlos. It appears by the certificate of the French consul-general that the official certificate of the registry of deaths is necessary to prove the decease of a person dying in a foreign country. In this case the wife of the deceased cannot obtain the legacy to which she is entitled from a relative in France until she produces a transcript of the official record of the death of her husband. Under these circumstances, I think that the writ of mandamus which is applied for should be granted.

On the affidavits it is placed beyond controversy that the relator is the widow of the deceased. As the record stands she cannot make proof of that fact. It should not be tolerated that after death the wrong which the deceased inflicted upon his wife during life should be continued.

The motion is therefore granted.  