Onda Digital Tv 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. Legal personality means that the right, duties and capacity to be a party to legal proceedings are guaranteed by the law or statutes of that country. If this is not guaranteed by law, it is not considered a legal entity. Partly on the basis of the principle that corporations are simply organizations of natural persons, and partly on the basis of the history of the legal interpretation of the word “person,” the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that certain constitutional rights protect corporations (such as corporations and other organizations). Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad is sometimes quoted for this statement because the court reporter`s comments included a statement by the Chief Justice made before the hearing began, telling counsel during pre-trial preparation that “the court does not wish to hear arguments as to whether the provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits a State from denying equal protection of the law to any person within its jurisdiction applies to such corporations. We all agree that this is the case. In law, a corporation is any person or “thing” (less ambiguously any corporation)[1][2] that can do the things that an ordinary person can normally do in law – such as entering into contracts, suing and being sued, owning property, etc.
[3] [4] [5] The rationale for the term “corporation” is that some legal entities are not persons: corporations and corporations are legally “persons” (they can legally do most of the things that an ordinary person can do), but they are clearly not persons in the ordinary sense of the word. From the discussion of legal theories of corporate personality, we observe that the main arguments lie between fiction and realist theories. The theory of fiction asserted that the entity of society as a legal entity is fictitious and exists only with the intent of the law. On the other hand, from a realistic point of view, the unity of society as a legal entity is not artificial or fictitious, but real and natural. The realist also asserted that the law only has the power to recognize a legal entity or refuse to recognize it, but the law does not have the power to create an entity. Therefore, there is a great difference between a human being and a legal person, since man is the existence given by nature while a legal person is a fiction created by law. The concept of legal personality refers essentially to the fact of the rights and obligations attached to it and to certain immunities and obligations attaching thereto. I could sue the manager of a fast food restaurant if I slipped and fell in his restaurant, but the fast food company as a separate “person” did not contribute to my accident. I could take legal action to discriminate against a company because it is a corporation.
Nevertheless, the realistic claim that society maintains its unity as a legal entity also seems to be true, not because the law grants it to them, but because it is generated by its daily transactions, which are then accepted and recognized by the law. If, in the context of criminal proceedings, a booking request is legally admissible, as a pro. 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] Legal personality is the capacity to enjoy rights and to be bound by obligations. According to the realist jurist, lawyers must acquire the habit of deviating from the clear meaning of the law and going behind the scenes of the legal platform for the realization and justice that the law is supposed to introduce into life. [30] Since the Industrial Revolution, when corporations came to power, the boundaries of a legal entity have been the subject of constant debate. While granting personality can help hold companies legally accountable for their actions, it also opens the door to many more complex issues. For example, if a company has a personality distinct from its shareholders or owners, some argue that it should also have individual rights such as voting rights. However, when voting rights are granted, shareholders are actually entitled to vote twice: once as an individual and once in the personality of the company. Since this conflicts with most electoral systems, it remains a controversial issue in legal circles. 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).
As Salmond says, personality is created at birth and ends at death, because deceased persons are no longer legal personality in the eyes of the law. The reason for this concept is that a person is no longer able to hold the rights and obligations. The concept of legal personality for organizations of persons is at least as old as in ancient Rome: a multitude of collegiate institutions enjoyed the advantage of Roman law. Legal personality is generally understood as the capacity to be – in traditional anthropomorphic terms – “bearer of legal rights and duties”. Legal personality is a structuring tool in legal systems, particularly in international law, because it indicates who the participants are. This article examines the concept of “legal personality” in two different roles that are mutually constitutive. The concept functions as an epistemic tool in theoretical reflections on the functioning of international law and at the same time designates a doctrinal category within the system of international law. Both functions are taken into account, with a simultaneous change between levels of analysis and a look also at the real candidates for international legal personality that have emerged over time in different political contexts. The article deals with a sequence of moments in the evolution of the form and use of the concept that seem particularly significant.
These are, with a vague indication of the periods: legal personality as a sign of legal existence (17th century) (Part 2); the external aspect of legal personality and its structuring effect (18th century) (part 3); Legal personality as the reverse of the reified state (19th century) (part 4); questioning the anthropomorphic conceptualization of legal personality and questioning the closed doctrinal category of international legal persons (Interbellum) (part 5); legal personality from a constitutive legal declaration to a declaratory declaration (UN era) (Part 6); and the possible implications for the concept of legal personality of postsubjective and posthuman approaches (from the 1990s onwards) (Part 7). Although the article thus gives a diachronic account of the ILP concept, the moments identified in its development are also continuous and co-existing aspects of the concept. Thus, while it is true that in the second half of the 19th century an intense concern for the State as the only legal entity in international law emerged, the central position of the State is also an important element in contemporary discourse on international legal personality. According to this theory, a legal person is a real personality in the extrajudicial and pre-judicial sense of the term. It also assumes that subjects of rights must belong not only to human beings, but to every being who has his own will and life. As a legal person and as “alive” as man, a society is also subject to rights[27]. From time to time, the term “corporation” has been interpreted by different lawyers in different contexts. Courts in the United States and the United Kingdom have interpreted the term on numerous occasions in commercial, international, domestic and social matters. The Indian judiciary also faced a similar challenge in the Mohd case. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. [31] W.
Friedman explained: “Every law exists for the inherent liberty of every individual; Therefore, the original concept of personality must coincide with the concept of man. [2] Vijay Sardana, Jurisprudence theories of legal personalities (27/01/2019, 23:44) lawnotesforstudents.blogspot.com/2017/05/jurisprudence-theories-of-legal.html.
