Reception of the common law of England as held in State v. Esser 16 Wis. 2d 567 (1962) which states:
a. Reception of English common law in Wisconsin. The area now in Wisconsin lay within the Northwest Territory. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787[6] provided that the inhabitants shall always be entitled to the benefit "of judicial proceedings according to the course of the common law." The governor and judges of the territory were empowered to adopt laws of the original states, and in 1795 they adopted a former Virginia statute declaring in force, "The common law of England, all statutes or acts of the British parliament made in aid of the common law, prior to the fourth year of the reign of King James the First [1607] (and which are of a general nature, not local to that kingdom) . . ."[7] The validity of this adoption of the former Virginia statute is open to question.[8]
In 1810 the governor and judges of the territory of Michigan enacted a law providing that the acts of the parliament of England and the parliament of Great Britain, the *574 custom of Paris or ancient French common law, the laws and acts of the authorities of Canada, and the laws adopted in the Northwest Territory and the territory of Indiana shall be of no force within the territory of Michigan.[9]
In 1818 the area now in Wisconsin, which had earlier been a part of the territory of Indiana and then of the territory of Illinois, was attached to the territory of Michigan and made subject to its laws.[10] In 1836 the territory of Wisconsin was created and the laws of the territory of Michigan continued in force.[11] In 1839 the legislature of the territory of Wisconsin repealed the acts of the territory of Michigan except that such repeal was not to revive other acts, and provided that none of the statutes of Great Britain shall be considered the law of the territory.[12]
In 1864, sixteen years after the adoption of our constitution, this court concluded "that when our territorial legislature and the framers of our constitution recognized the existence here of the common law, they must be held to have had reference to that law as it existed, modified and amended by English statutes passed prior to the Revolution."[13] The opinion makes no reference to the legislative history which we have outlined except that a quotation from an Iowa decision includes a statement that the Ordinance of 1787 made common law the law of the Northwest Territory. Principally the Coburn decision was based upon the proposition that the existence of common law had been assumed from the beginning of the territory and that a void in the legal system *575 would otherwise exist. Decisions similarly based were cited from Michigan[14] and Iowa.[15],[16]
It is clear that there were some English common-law rules which did not become parts of the common law in American jurisdictions. Courts have generally decided that particular English rules were not to be applied locally if deemed unsuitable to local conditions or out of harmony with local institutions.[17]
If, however, Coburn v. Harvey[18] (and that decision was but sixteen years after the adoption of our constitution) stands for the proposition that a rule of English common law developed and applied by the English courts prior to 1776 is to be deemed to have been in force in the territory of Wisconsin, in the absence of statutory change or determination of unsuitability to the territory, we are unable to find that the right-wrong definition of the defense of insanity had reached that stage of development in England by that year.
Kruzel v. Podell, 67 Wis.2d 138, Wis. Supreme Court (1975) states:
Additionally, the attorney general has ruled that the common-law right of a person to freely change a name applies in Wisconsin in the absence of fraud.
State v. Hansford, 219 Wis. 2d 226, 580 N.W.2d 171 (1998) states:
Wisconsin does recognize a common law right to change one's name through consistent and continuous use, as long as the change is not effected for a fraudulent purpose.
State v. Smith, 770 NW 2d 779 - Wis: Court of Appeals 2009 states:
Smith is correct that Wisconsin law allows one to change one's name via the common law. See State v. Hansford, 219 Wis.2d 226, 246, 580 N.W.2d 171 (1998) (Wisconsin "recognize[s] the common law right to change one's name through consistent and continuous use, as long as the change is not effected for a fraudulent purpose.").
Frank v. Walker 11-C-1128 USDC Eastern District of Wisconsin (2016) states:
Under Wisconsin common law, if the person has consistently and continuously used the name, then the name is considered to have been legally changed even though no formal procedure was used.
Trans 102.15(3)(c):
For an identification card, to establish a name other than the name that appears on a supporting document, the person may provide evidence acceptable to the administrator that the person has used the name in a manner that qualifies the name as being legally changed under the common law of Wisconsin, including evidence of the person's prior name, changed name, the length of time the person has consistently and continuously used the changed name, an affirmation that the person no longer uses the prior name, and an affirmation that the person did not change his or her name for a dishonest or fraudulent purpose or to the injury of any other person. The department shall mark an identification card issued under this subdivision in the manner described in s. 343.03 (3r), Stats.
Affidavit