In our view, it is this failure to assume legal responsibilities and societal duties that makes it inappropriate to give chimpanzees the legal rights – such as the fundamental right to liberty protected by the habeas corpus arrest warrant – that have been granted to humans. There are therefore two types of legal entities: human and non-human. In law, a human person is designated as a natural person (sometimes also as a natural person), and a non-human person is called a legal person (sometimes also as a legal, legal, artificial, legal or fictitious person, Latin: persona ficta). Legal entities are businesses such as corporations, corporations (in some jurisdictions), and many government agencies. They are legally treated as if they were people. [4] [6] [7] I am also aware that the term “individual” differs from corporations in the different jurisprudential definitions of “natural person” and “legal person” or “legal person”. A “natural person” is defined as a human being born alive by Black`s Law Dictionary. So, in the law of the dictionary, is the term “individual” synonymous with “natural person” and therefore with “human being”? In lawsuits involving corporations, shareholders are not liable for the company`s debts, but the company itself, as a “legal entity”, is obliged to repay those debts or be sued for non-repayment of debts. [22] Indian law defines two types of “legal persons”, human beings as well as certain non-human entities which are given the same legal personality as human beings.
Non-human entities that are legally designated as “corporations” “have ancillary rights and obligations; They can sue and be sued, can own and transfer property.” Because these non-human entities are “voiceless,” they are legally represented “by guardians and agents” to assert their legal rights and fulfill their legal duties and responsibilities. Specific non-human entities with the status of “legal entity” include “legal personality, political bodies, non-profit trade unions, etc.” as well as trusts, deities, temples, churches, mosques, hospitals, universities, colleges, banks, railways, municipalities and gram panchayats (village councils), rivers, all animals and birds. [22] In the common law tradition, only one person could have legal rights. In order for them to work, the legal personality of a company has been established to include five legal rights: the right to a common treasure or safe (including the right to property), the right to a corporate seal (i.e. the right to conclude and sign contracts), the right to sue (to enforce contracts). the right to hire agents (employees) and the right to enact laws (self-government). [19] But in 2017, the NhRP discovered that the quoted sentence from Case Law – as it actually appears in the treaty – contains a crucial difference from the version that ended up in Lavery. The jurisprudence actually says: “As far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being who considers that the law is capable of having rights or duties.” “Rights or obligations” – and not, as in Black`s Law Dictionary, “rights and obligations”. Lavery quoted the following sentence from case law as it appears in the 7th edition of Black`s Law Dictionary: “As far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law considers capable of rights and duties.” According to Indian law, “shebaitship” is the property belonging to the deity or idol as a “legal person”. People who are destined to act in the name of divinity are called “shebait”. A shebait acts as guardian or guardian of the deity to protect the right of the deity and fulfill the legal duties of the deity.
Shebait is similar to a trustee if the deity or temple has a legally registered trust or legal entity. According to Hindu law, goods given or offered as rituals or gifts, etc. absolutely belong to the deity and not to the shebait. The case studies are “Profulla Chrone Requitte vs Satya Chorone Requitte”, AIR 1979 SC 1682 (1686): (1979) 3 SCC 409: (1979) 3 SCR 431. (ii)” and “Shambhu Charan Shukla vs Thakur Ladli Radha Chandra Madan Gopalji Maharaj, AIR 1985 SC 905 (909): (1985) 2 SCC 524: (1985) 3 SCR 372”. [24] It is not uncommon to have a definition of “person” in a statute or contract that omits government entities, omits all types of entities, or omits certain types of entities (e.g., foreign corporations). Not all organizations have legal personality. For example, directors of a corporation, legislature or government agency are generally not legal entities because they do not have the ability to exercise legal rights independently of the corporation or political body to which they belong.
Section 28 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 states: ” the provisions of this Bill of Rights apply, to the extent possible, for the benefit of all legal persons and all natural persons. In lawsuits involving religious entities, the deity (the deity or god is a supernatural being considered divine or holy) is also a “legal person” that can participate in a dispute through a “trustee” or “temple administrative authority.” The Supreme Court of India (SC) ruled in 2010, ruling on Ram Janmabhoomi`s Ayodhya case, that the Rama deity in the respective temple was a “legal person” entitled to be represented by its own lawyer appointed by the directors acting on behalf of the deity. Similarly, the Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that the Ayyappan deity was a “legal person” with a “right to privacy” in the court case concerning the entry of women into Lord Ayyapan`s Sabarimala shrine. [22] The notion of legal personality for organizations of persons is at least as old as ancient Rome: a multitude of collegiate institutions enjoyed the advantage of Roman law. Foreign governments that would otherwise have the right to bring an action in U.S. courts are “persons” who have the right to bring an action for triple damages for alleged violations of antitrust laws under the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 12 et seq.). Here is an example of the status of a State governing the definition of a person: since legal personality is a prerequisite for legal capacity (the capacity of any legal person to modify (conclude, transfer, etc.) its rights and obligations), it is essential for an international organization to be able to sign international treaties in its own name. Illegitimate children are “persons” within the meaning of the Equality Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. For example, a tax law could define “person” to include individuals and entities, but exclude governments. Discovering the error was one thing, but correcting it was another. Although Lavery focuses on the 7. Black`s Law Dictionary, published in 1999, subsequent editions of the Legal Dictionary also contain the same false quotation from case law.
Black`s Law Dictionary was in its 10th edition when the bug was discovered in 2017 after its publication in 2014. The term legal person (“pessoa jurídica” in Portuguese) is used in case law to designate a legal person with rights and obligations, which also has legal personality. Its regulations are largely based on the Brazilian Civil Code, where it is clearly recognized and defined, among other things. Since the 19th century, the legal person has been interpreted more broadly to make it a citizen, domicile or domicile of a state (usually for the purposes of personal jurisdiction). In Louisville, C. & C.R. Co. v. Letson, 2 Wie. 497, 558, 11 L.Ed. 353 (1844), the United States Supreme Court held that, for the purposes of this case, a corporation “may be treated both as a citizen [of the State which created it] and as an individual.” Ten years later, they confirmed Letson`s conclusion, albeit on the slightly different theory that “those who use the company`s name and exercise the powers it confers” should be conclusively regarded as citizens of the company`s founding state. Marshall v.
Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 16 Wie. 314, 329, 14 L.Ed. 953 (1854). These concepts have been codified by law because U.S. jurisdiction laws relate specifically to corporate domicile. Subsequent comments interpreted these comments prior to the oral argument as part of the legal decision. [26] Accordingly, the First Amendment does not permit Congress to pass legislation restricting the freedom of expression of a political company or action group or requiring reporting in a local newspaper,[27] and the Due Process Clause does not allow a state government to take possession of a corporation without due process and fair compensation.
This protection applies to all legal persons, not just companies. If the word “person” were used in this way, the law would not have to say instead (probably less precise and less intelligible): For example, a law using the word “person” could say: This false quotation is not a trivial error, but a fundamental error at the heart of the court`s decision. In the next sentence of Jurisprudence, the treaty clearly states that “every being thus capable [of rights or duties] is a person, whether human or not,” which is exactly the opposite of what Lavery said about the legal person. This is also exactly what the NhRP has maintained from the beginning. The concept of legal personality is not absolute. `penetration of the corporate veil` means the consideration of natural persons acting as agents involved in an act or decision of society; This may lead to a court decision treating the rights or obligations of a company or public limited company as rights or obligations of the members or directors of that company. Lavery marks the first time in Anglo-American history that a court denies a person a legal claim because he or she is unable to carry legal obligations. Nevertheless, many people who are not able to bear legal obligations are undoubtedly legal persons.
