Who or What is a Person?
WHO OR WHAT IS A PERSON?
The word 'person' is a legal word in the American system of law and one of the most important to comprehend if you wish to know the law. The word "person" is a word of art, belonging to the language of the court or legalese.
The word 'person' has been defined by the U.S. Supreme Court over many years throughout multiple different cases as well as multiple state supreme courts and other authorities staying inline with what the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has defined the word to be. Aside from finding the defining elements of the word on this page, looking to a law dictionary is usually the fasted way to find a legal definition.
The word person is also defined in Black's Law Dictionary (as well as other law dictionaries). In the older editions of Black's Law Dictionary the definition is almost a whole page long to describe the word "person". The word 'person' breaks down into two categories: artificial persons and natural persons.
A person in the general sense to the public is a living human being,...But
a person in the general sense in the legal arena is a non-living entity meaning a corporation or a human being in a corporate capacity meaning that the person is on the clock working whether it's for the government in an official capacity or a person working for a corporation (either working for him or herself or working for someone else's company).
When a statute or ordinance uses the word "person"...majority of the time it is not referring to the people as in men or women but refers to artificial persons such as corporations, government entities, and persons who are in a corporate capacity because they are on the clock working for a corporate entity engaged in commerce. See RCW 46.20.001 Washington State's driver's license statute.
When a person (or persons) gets off work and clocks out from their job (occupation) they are no longer called a person/(s) because they are not in a corporate capacity they are then called natural persons.
Person."persons" are of two kinds, natural and artificial. A natural person is a human being. Artificial persons include a collection or succession of natural persons forming a corporation; a collections of property to which the law attributes the capacity of having rights and duties. The latter class of artificial persons is recognized only to a limited extent in our law. Examples are the estate of a bankrupt or deceased person. Hogan v. Greenfield, 58 Wyo. 13, 122 P. 2d 850, 853. Black's Law Dictionary 4th Ed. page 1299-1300
NOTE: A corporation may also be owned by just one person not just multiple, notice how the above definition states "include a collection of natural persons" but it is not limited to multiple persons.
EXCERPTS FROM THE U.S. SUPREME COURT:
"It is now settled that corporations are persons, within the meaning of the constitutional provisions forbidding the deprivation of property without due process of law, as well as a denial of the equal protection of the laws. Santa Clara Co. v. Southern Pac. Ry. Co., 118 U. S. 394, 6 Sup. Ct. 1132; Pembina Con. Silver Mining & Milling Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181, 189, 8 Sup. Ct. 737; Railroad Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U. S. 29, 9 Sup. Ct. 207; Railroad Co. v. Gibbes. 142 U. S. 386, 391, 12 Sup. Ct. 255." Convington & L. Turnp. Co. v. Sandford, 164 U.S. 578 (1896)
"The clause in the Fourteenth Amendment forbidding a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws (Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U. S. 312, 333, 42 S. Ct. 124, 66 L. Ed. 254, 27 A. L. R. 375; Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Vosburg, 238 U. S. 56, 59, 35 S. Ct. 675, 59 L. Ed. 1119, L. R. A. 1915E, 953), and extends as well to corporate as to natural persons (Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 522, 18 S. Ct. 418, 42 L. Ed. 819; Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150, 154, 17 S. Ct. 255, 41 L. Ed. 666; Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co., 118 U. S. 394, 396, 6 S. Ct. 1132, 30 L. Ed. 118)." Power Manufacturing Company v. Saunders, 274 U.S. 490 (1927)
“Because § 1 of the Civil Rights Act does not state expressly that municipal corporations come within its ambit, it is finally necessary to interpret § 1 to confirm that such corporations were indeed intended to be included within the “persons” to whom that section applies. …..
Municipal corporations in 1871 were included within the phrase “bodies politic and **2035 corporate”51 and, accordingly, the *689 “plain meaning” of § 1 is that local government bodies were to be included within the ambit of the persons who could be sued under § 1 of the Civil Rights Act. ……Our analysis of the legislative history of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 compels the conclusion that Congress did intend municipalities and other local government units to be included among those persons to whom § 1983 applies.” Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)
"In the words of Chief Justice Marshall, a corporation is “an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law.” Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 I Wheat. 518, 636, 4 L.Ed. 629 (1819)." Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257 (1989)
"An aggregate corporation, at common law, is a collection of individuals, united into one collective body, under a special name, and possessing certain immunities, privileges and capacities, in its collective character, which do not belong to the natural persons composing it. Among other things, it possesses the capacity of perpetual succession, and of acting by the collected vote or will of its component members, and of suing and being sued in all things touching its corporate rights and duties. It is, in short, an artificial person, existing in contemplation of law, and endowed with certain powers and franchises which, though they must be exercised through the medium of its natural members, are yet considered as subsisting in the corporation itself, as distinctly as if it were a real personage." Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819)
“Since, in common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it.5 But there is no hard *605 and fast rule of exclusion. The purpose, **744 the subject matter, the context, the legislative history, and the executive interpretation of the statute are aids to construction which may indicate an intent, by the use of the term, to bring state or nation within the scope of the law. In re Fox, 52 N.Y. 530, 11 Am.Rep. 751; United States v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 321, 24 L.Ed. 192. See Levy v. M'Cartee, 6 Pet. 102, 110, 8 L.Ed. 334; United States v. Freeman, 3 How. 556, 565, 11 L.Ed. 724; Ohio v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 360, 370, 54 S.Ct. 725, 727, 78 L.Ed. 1307; Nardone v. United States, 302 U.S. 379, 58 S.Ct. 275, 82 L.Ed. 314.” U.S. v. Cooper Corporation, 312 U.S. 600 (1941)
“The Act does not define ‘persons'. In common usage that term does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing it will ordinarily not be construed to do so.25 Congress made express provision, R.S. s 1, 1 U.S.C. s 1, 1 U.S.C.A. s 1, for the term to extend to partnerships and corporations, and in s 13 of the Act itself for it to extend to associations. The absence of any comparable provision extending the term to sovereign governments implies that Congress did not desire the term to extend to them. United States v. Cooper Corporation, 1941, 312 U.S. 600, 604, 61 S.Ct. 742, 743, 85 L.Ed. 1071; United States v. Fox, 1876, 94 U.S. 315, 321, 24 L.Ed. 192.” U.S. v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258 (1947)
“[I]n common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it.” United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604, 61 S.Ct. 742, 743, 85 L.Ed. 1071 (1941); accord, United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 275, 67 S.Ct. 677, 687, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947). Particularly is this true where the statute imposes a burden or limitation, as distinguished from conferring a benefit or advantage. United States v. Knight, 39 U.S. 301, 315, 14 Pet. 301, 315, 10 L.Ed. 465 (1840). There is nevertheless “no hard and fast rule of exclusion,” United States v. Cooper **2538 Corp., supra, 312 U.S., at 604–605, 61 S.Ct., at 743; and much depends on the context, the subject matter, legislative history, and executive interpretation." Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653 (1979)
“It is contended by counsel as the basis of his argument, and we admit the soundness of his position, that corporations are persons within the meaning of the clause in question. It was so held in Santa Clara Co. v. Railroad Co., 118 U. S. 394, 396, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1132, and the doctrine was reasserted in Mining Co. v. Penusylvania, 125 U. S. 181, 189, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 737. We admit also, as contended by him, that corporations can invoke the benefits of provisions of the constitution and laws which guaranty to persons the enjoyment of property, or afford to them the means for its protection, or prohibit legislation injuriously affecting it.” Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U.S. 26 (1889)
“It is well settled that corporations are persons within the provisions of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States. Santa Clara Co. v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 118 U. S. 394, 6 Sup. Ct. 1132; Pembina Consol. Silver Min., etc., Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181, 189, 8 Sup. Ct. 737; Railway Co. v. Mackey, 127 U. S. 205, 8 Sup. Ct. 1161; Railway Co. v. Herrick, 127 U. S. 210, 8 Sup. Ct. 1176; Railway Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U. S. 26, 9 Sup. Ct. 207; Railroad Co. v. Gibbes, 142 U. S. 386, 12 Sup. Ct. 255; Road Co. v. Sandford, 164 U. S. 578, 17 Sup. Ct. 198. The rights and securities guarantied to persons by that instrument cannot be disregarded in respect to these artificial entities called ‘corporations' any more than they can be in respect to the individuals who are the equitable owners of the property belonging to such corporations. A state has no more power to deny to corporations the equal protection of the law than it has to individual citizens.” Gulf, C. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150 (1897)
“Private corporations are persons, within the meaning of the amendment. It has been so held in several cases by this court. Santa Clara Co. v. Railroad Co., 118 U. S. 394, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1132; Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181, 189, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 737; Railroad Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U. S. 26, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 207.” Charlotte, C. & A.R. Co. v. Gibbes, 142 U.S. 386 (1892)
U.S. CASE CITATIONS:
Convington & L. Turnp. Co. v. Sandford, 164 U.S. 578 (1896)
Power Manufacturing Company v. Saunders, 274 U.S. 490 (1927)
Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)
Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257 (1989)
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819)
U.S. v. Cooper Corporation, 312 U.S. 600 (1941)
U.S. v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258 (1947)
Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653 (1979)
Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U.S. 26 (1889)
Gulf, C. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150 (1897)
Charlotte, C. & A.R. Co. v. Gibbes, 142 U.S. 386 (1892)
EXCERPTS FROM FEDERAL LOWER COURTS:
“The Supreme Court has held that municipalities may be held liable as “persons” under § 1983 “when execution of a government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury.” Monell, 436 U.S. at 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018.” Price v. Sery, 513 F.3d 962 (CA9 2008) 9th Circuit Court of Appeal
"Congress intended the term “person” to include municipalities, such as the County here. See Monell v. Department of Social Serv. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978).Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 918 (9th Cir.1996)" Christie v. Iopa, 176 F.3d 1231 (CA9 1999)
The word “person” in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. See e. g. 1 U.S.C. s 1. Church of Scientology of California v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 612 F.2d 417 (CA9 1979)
NOTE: When you see CA9 in a case citation, that is an abbreviation for Court of Appeals 9th Circuit.
“(and the term ‘person‘ includes ‘partnerships‘)” In re Julian, 22 F.Supp. 97 (1938) Dist. Ct., M.D. Penn.
“A partnership is a legal entity distinct from its members.” In re Julian, 22 F.Supp. 97 (1938) Dist. Ct., M.D. Penn.
EXCERPTS FROM STATE CASES AND OTHER AUTHORITIES:
"The word ‘person’ is defined to include firms and corporations." State ex rel. Joseph R. Peebles Sons Co. v. State Board of Pharmacy, 127 Ohio St. 513, 189 N.E. 447, 448 (1934)
"The estate of a decedent is a person" Billings v. State, 107 Ind. 54, 6 N.E. 914, 7N.E. 763, 57 Am.Rep. 77.
"As stated in 48 C.J. 1038, “While inits primary sense, it (‘person’) means a natural person only, the term is a broad one, and the sense in which it is used in any particular instance may often be ascertained from the context and intent with it is employed.” Thus it has been held to include an “agent *** an estate.” In Billings v. State, 107 Ind. 54, 6 N.E. 914, 7 N.E. 763, 57 Am.Rep. 77, the question was whether or not an indictment charging that the estate of a deceased was defrauded was sufficient to charge a fraud upon a “person.” The court stated: “The estate of a decedent is a person in legal contemplation. ‘The word “person,”’ says Mr. Abbott, ‘in its legal signification, is a generic term, and includes artificial as well as natural persons.’ 2 Abb.Dict. 271; Douglass v. Pacific, etc., Co., 4 Cal. 304; Planters', etc., Bank v. Andrews, 8 Port., (Ala.) 404. It is said in another work that ‘Persons are of two kinds, natural and artificial. A natural person is a human being. Artificial persons include (1) a collection or succession of natural persons forming a corporation; (2) a collection of property to which the law attributes the capacity of having rights and duties. The latter class of artificial persons is recognized only to a limited extent in our law. Examples are the estate of a bankrupt or deceased person.’ 2 Rapalje & L.Law.Dict. 954.
In Barry v. Minahan, 127 Wis. 570, 107 N.W. 488, 491, it appeared that the statute provided that “every person having a claim against a deceased person” should file the claim within a limited time. The court held that the term “person” included an estate. In Worthen v. State, 189 Ala. 395, 66 So. 686, 689,....
The court held that the term “person” as used in the statute “includes any entity or individuals, against which or against whom a liability may be claimed, made, or established,” and hence included a bankrupt estate." Hogan v. Greenfield, 58 Wyo. 13 (1942)
A county is a person in a legal sense, Lancaster Co. v. Trimble, 34 Neb. 752, 52 N.W. 711; but a sovereign is not; In re Fox, 52 N.Y. 535, 11 Am.Rep. 751; U.S. v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 24 L.Ed. 192 Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. p. 1300
"Persons are also divided by the law into either natural persons, or artificial. Natural persons are such as the God of nature formed us: artificial are such as created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government; which are called corporations of body politic." 1 William Blackstone Commentaries on the Laws of England Chapter 1 of Persons page 119
56 American Jurisprudence 2d Sec. 5 page 74 (1979) A municipal corporation has been held to be a "person" within the meaning of that term as used in statutes.15 Statutes very frequently specifically include political subdivisions within the meaning of persons.16
Those trained in the law know there are two nationally recognized and used law encyclopedias. One is American Jurisprudence and the other is Corpus Juris Secundum. Law encyclopedias are secondary sources of law. While generally not jurisdictional specific on a topic of law, they teach how to understand and apply primary sources of law. Below cited is an excerpt from American Jurisprudence in regards to statutory construction of licensing statutes:
Statutes may, of course, be so worded as to require a license for the carrying on of certain activities only in the event that they are carried on by a corporation. In the absence of particularization or exemption, however, a licensing statute will ordinarily be construed as applying regardless of the form of the entity or person carrying on the specified activities. 51 Am. Jur.2d., LICENSES AND PERMITS, PART ONE, GENERAL PRINCIPLES, I. GENERAL, §42. Generally, p. 49 V. WHO IS SUBJECT TO LICENSE LEGISLATION
A real example is provided below in a statute from the Washington state motor vehicle code:
RCW 46.20.001 License required—Rights and restriction. (1) No person may drive a motor vehicle upon a highway in this state without first obtaining a valid driver's license issued to Washington residents under this chapter. The only exceptions to this requirement are those expressly allowed by RCW 46.20.025. (2) A person licensed as a driver under this chapter: (a) May exercise the privilege upon all highways in this state; (b) May not be required by a political subdivision to obtain any other license to exercise the privilege; and (c) May not have more than one valid driver's license at any time.
Corporations and corporate activity of any kind such as making investment deals,... joint ventures, LLC, LLP, professional corporations, all corporations for profit and not for profit, including associations, universities, government corporate entities such political subdivisions, cities, counties and more...are all "persons" in the law. In the American system of law the word "person" does not include a state or the federal government both of which are considered sovereigns, as we seen above a sovereign is not a person. The several states and the U.S. government are said to actually have "clipped-sovereignty" due to the constitutional limitations.
What is an INDIVIDUAL?
Just as the word 'person' or 'persons' has a general meaning and a legal meaning so does the word 'individual':
Individual. As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons. State v. Bell Telephone Co., 36 Ohio St. 310, 38 Am.Rep. 583. As an adjective, "individual" means pertaining or belonging to, or characteristic of, one single person, either in opposition to a firm, association, or corporation, or considered in his relation thereto. Black's Law Dictionary 4th Ed. p. 913
INDIVIDUAL (Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd Ed. Online)
As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association ; but it is said that this restrictive signi- fication is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons. See Bank of U. S. v. State, 12 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 400; State v. Bell Telephone Co.. 30 Ohio St. 310, 38 Am. Rep. 583; Pennsylvania it. Co. v. Canal Com’rs, 21 Pa. 20. As an adjective, “individual” means pertaining or belonging to, or characteristic of, one single person, either in opposition to a firm, association, or corporation, or considered in his relation thereto. https://thelawdictionary.org/individual/
CASE CITATIONS:
Bank of U. S. v. State, 12 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 400;
State v. Bell Telephone Co.. 30 Ohio St. 310, 38 Am. Rep. 583;
Pennsylvania it. Co. v. Canal Com’rs, 21 Pa. 20
