Legal Personhood Of Hindu Idols

946 WordsMay 17, 20164 Pages
1. The legal person conceptual, it is in effect a construct that outlines the rights and duties of an individual and they relate to legal purpose and jurisdiction. Legal personhood can be characterized as a persona. In class this was described as tantamount to a mask worn by a player in theatre to indicate the role they are playing. A legal person can be a human being or can also be a being less descript but imbued with rights such as is demonstrated in Mullick v. Mullick. In Mullick v. Mullick the legal personhood of Hindu idols was established based on religious custom. These idols were recognized by the courts to be juristic entities. Judges did not attribute human or supernatural personality to these idols but did distinguish them from mere chattel by recognizing legal personhood. Contrastingly, legal personhood can be stripped from (or not granted to) human beings. This concept is at the heart of Gregson v. Gilbert. Despite the fact that the slaves in question in this case were obviously human beings, they were legally categorized as property. This case specifically explored the issue of whether or not these slaves were insurable cargo. 2. In the positivist definition of law a legal person is a purely formal legal concept, a fiction, a device, and a construct. The focus is on the variable rights and duties attributed. Through legal personhood, the way that society and the state interact with the individual is prescribed. Davies and Naffine outline Kocourek’s

    More about Legal Personhood Of Hindu Idols

      Open Document