In re McUlta (1911) states:
The Act of 1852 did not change the common law rule, but was passed in affirmance and aid of the common law. Without the aid of the Act, a man may change his name or names, first or last, and when his creditors and the community have acquiesced and recognized him by his new designation, that becomes his name.
This exception charges the bankrupt with fraud in obtaining the goods and merchandise purchased, in that he did not inform his creditors of his right name, and therefore he did not obtain title to the goods which he claims as exempt. We dismiss this exemption. A name is used merely to designate a person or thing. It is the mark or indica to distinguish him from other persons, and that is as far as the law looks. In re Snook, supra; Rich v. Mayer (City Ct. N. Y.) 7 N. Y. Sup. 69, 70. They are merely used as means of indicating identity of persons. Meyer v. Indiana National Bank 27 Ind. App. 354, 61 N. E. 596. There is nothing in the evidence to show that any fraud was committed by the bankrupt in purchasing the goods. They were sold to him under his assumed name (the creditors never knew until after the institution of bankruptcy proceedings and the adjudication, that the bankrupt was doing business under an assumed name;) and he took title of the goods and could have disposed of them under his assumed name and given a good title to the same. Credit in this case was given to the man—not the name -- and that man was J. D. McUlta.

Laflin & Rand Co. v. Steytler, 146 Pa. 434, 442 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. 1892) states:
The legislature in 1852 provided a mode of changing the name, but that act was in affirmance and aid of the common law, to make a definite point of time at which a change shall take effect. But without the aid of that act a man may change his name or names, first or last, and when his neighbors and the community have acquiesced and recognized him by his new designation, that becomes his name.

In re Harris, 707 A. 2d 225 - Pa: Superior Court 1997 states:
A change of name statute "is to be construed consistently with and not in derogation of the common law." Eck, supra. At common law, an individual is free at any time to adopt and use any name, if such name is used consistently, nonfraudulently and exclusively.

54 Pa.C.S.A. § 701(b) provides:
(b) Informal change of name.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), a person may at any time adopt and use any name if such name is used consistently, nonfraudulently and exclusively.

There is allegedly a common law reception statute, but this is the only source I could find for it: State Statutes Adopting the Common Law of England
Reception statute of Pennsylvania (1777)
“( 1.) Each and every one of the laws or acts of general assembly, that were in force and binding on the inhabitants of the said province on the l4th day of May last, shall be in force and binding on the inhabitants of this state, from and after the 10th day of February next, as fully and effectually, to all intents and purposes, as if the said laws, and each of them, had been made or enacted by this general assembly . . . and the common law and such of the statute laws of England, as have heretofore been in force in the said province, except as hereafter excepted. (2.) Provided always, that so much of every law or act of general assembly of the province aforesaid, . . . as declares, orders, directs or commands any matter or thing repugnant to, against, or inconsistent with the constitution of this commonwealth, is hereby declared not to be revived, but shall be null and void, and of no force or effect; and so much of the statute laws of England aforesaid relating to felonies, as takes notice of or relates to treason or misprision of treason, or directs the style of the process in any case whatsoever, shall be, and is hereby declared, of no force or effect, anything herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Kirk v. Dean, 2 Binn. (Pa.) 341 (1810) also stated:
Although the charter of Pennsylvania extended the common law of England

Affidavit