Pretty much what the header says. How did “John Doe” and “Jane Doe” get to be the place-holder names for people whose names are not known?
I had always assumed is was some goof on “John, DOA”.
And the Great Cecil answers http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_168a.html
I always thought it was because “Abijah T Bindersnatch” took just too long to type.
Sorry about that. I tried to search the board archives, didnt think to search the column archives.
Cecil’s article doesn’t explain where “John Doe” really comes from, though, and I suspect the standard answer is “nobody knows.” However, I do have a theory.
Consider that two other common “stand-in” names used in English jurisprudence are “John a Nokes” and “John a Stiles.” Both are ancient, and are derived from, respectively, “John at the oaks” and “John of the stiles.” These namings may have once belonged to real people in real cases, but they have been genericized.
Much legal language has been taken from French, no doubt due to the the influence of the Normans. Might a third stand-in name have been used in French, that name being “John by the water,” i.e., “Jean D’eau”? This would have been absorbed in the usual British fashion as “John Doe.”
And why is it John Doe and not John Smith? I always considered that to be the most common, generic, plain-vanilla english name. I’ve never, ever, in my life met anyone named Doe!
I know a John Doe. He’s a kinda strange guy.
Trust The Maven
The Maven copped out, samclem. I stand by my theory, although I can’t find any supporting evidence.
I think probably John Smith is too common to be used for this purpose.
People might think that you were actually referring to a known person called John Smith.
John Doe is a sufficiently distinctive name for one to know, when one hears it, that the speaker is using the name as a shorthand way of saying “an unknown male”.
In legal cases in which there are two unidentified parties, the second is often referred to as Richard Roe, viz., “State v. John Doe and Richard Roe.” There is a law professor at my alma mater whose actual name is Richard Roe. I always found that humorous.
–Cliffy, Esq.
Nametag You said
I need a cite for that.
Try Garner’s “A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage” – sorry, it’s not online. I might mention that these two are archaic usages.
Nametag Thanks for that.
The OED indeed list John a Nokes and John a Stiles from 1531.
John Doe they list from 1768 in Blackstone’s Commentaries.
Thanks for taking the discussion back a few centuries.
I think that the French connection that you proposed is not likely unless you can show me that John Doe was used in the 12th century or so. Then it could have come from French. But as late as it appears, it’s not likely from John d’eau.
It would be nice to know where Cecil got his info that the term John Doe appears in the 14th century.
The Word Detective’s explanation:
So, what do they do if one of the parties to a case really has one of those names? Is there a standard way of distinguishing?
Doe and Roe are typically used in Complaints and other initial pleadings to indicate parties unknown. One of the descriptive paragraphs of the pleading will then state that John Doe is an unknown individual. If by chance there is a real person named John Doe being sued, then the descriptive paragraph will describe him (i.e., “a natural person residing at 123 Oak Street, Blackacre.”)
Perhaps the most famous example in United States is Roe v. Wade; Wade was a district attorney in Texas, and “Jane Roe” an anonymous woman later revealed to be Norma McCorvey.
*Originally posted by KarlGauss
So, if two anonymous litigants contested ownership of a tractor, would they call it “John Doe v Richard Roe in re John Deere”?
Or would that get thrown out as being frivolous?