The Minnesota government in St Paul is considering a bill that, ifapproved, would regulate the names of new and existing businesses inthe gopher state. The bill is aimed at 'and son' businesses, which areusually formed by a surname followed by 'and Son(s).' Specifically, thelaw targets surnames that end in -son.

For example, Samuelson& Son, Peerson & Son, Gustavson & Son, Benson & Son,Mathieson & Son, Anderson & Son and Emanuelson & Son are ahandful of business names in Minnesota that would be affected ifpassed. If the state has their say the above companies must use 'andrelative(s)' in place of 'and son(s)' or eliminate the 'son' from thesurname (Ander and Son). Confused yet?

"It's redundant and thereare quite a few of them in the state," said Minnesota state senator,Mike Holst. "It's confusing to customers. Why can't the 'son' in thelast name double for the 'and son?' Ander&son would work fine."

The vote will take place in several weeks and has much of the state's 'and son' owners extremely upset.

"We'vebeen Anderson & Son for 54 years," said funeral director ColsonAnderson who has three daughters, and no sons, all of which are notactive in the organization. "Anderson & Relative just doesn't soundright."

Hence, another issue that concerns the state is that anestimated 40% of these 'and son' businesses do not have a son involvedat all in the day-to-day operation of the business.

Sonnersonand Son, Inc in Bells Mills, MN, a lake counting firm, contains three'sons' in its name and in only a month or so could see its new name bereduced to simply … Son, Inc.

The name restrictions would notinclude surnames ending in -sen or -sin. 'And Child' may also appear inthe name but not 'And Children.' The state claims this law proposal wasnot in any way inspired by South Dakota's recent approval of a similarbill.