peopleCeNTiLMeN date_rangeAralık 2 2022

The Concept of Legal Personality in Jurisprudence

Some common law systems distinguish between a corporation (for example, a multi-member corporation) and a corporation, which is a public office with a separate legal personality from the person holding the office (both entities have separate legal personality). Historically, most bodies have been exclusively ecclesiastical in nature (for example, the office of Archbishop of Canterbury is a single body), but a number of other public functions are now formed as single bodies. Indian law defines two types of “legal entities”, human beings as well as certain non-human entities that have 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] The word “person” is derived from the Latin word “persona.” It refers not only to persons, but to any person or anything that is entitled to assert legal rights or is subject to legal obligations. From a legal point of view, the mask of personality does not necessarily have to be worn by people. Legal persons are artificially created and recognized by law as legal persons. They are people only in the eyes of the law, not in general.

They are also created by legal fiction and therefore also called fictional. They are called different names such as fictitious, legal, artificial or moral, etc. The decision of the House of Lords in Salomon v. A Salomon & Co. Ltd has had a lasting impact on corporate law. He is often credited with the principle of the separate legal entity of the partnership, which is different from the partners. A legal or legal person (Latin: persona ficta; also a legal person) has a legal name and has certain legal rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities and obligations, similar to those of a natural person. The concept of legal person is a fundamental legal fiction.

It is relevant to the philosophy of law as it is essential for laws affecting a company (corporate law). The teaching has been attributed to Pope Innocent IV, who seems at least to have helped spread the idea of persona ficta, as it is called in Latin. In canon law, the doctrine of persona ficta allowed monasteries to have a separate legal existence from monks, which simplified the difficulty of balancing the need for these groups to have infrastructure, even if monks took a vow of personal poverty. Another effect of this was that a monastery as a fictitious person could not be convicted of the crime because it had no soul, which helped protect the organization from non-contractual obligations to the surrounding communities. This effectively transferred this responsibility to the people acting within the organization, while protecting the structure itself, as individuals could be seen as moving and therefore negligent and excommunicated. [18] Since the 19th century, a legal person has been interpreted more broadly to make it a citizen, domicile or domicile of a state (generally for the purposes of personal jurisdiction). In Louisville, C. & C.R. Co. v. Letson, 2 Wie.

497, 558, 11 L.Ed. 353 (1844), United States The 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 a natural person.” 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.

Yorumlar kapatıldı.