PERSON. A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the right to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. Peo ple v. R. Co., 134 N. Y. 506, 31 N. E. 873.
The term is, however, more extensive than man. It may include artificial beings, as corporations; 1 Bla. Com. 123; 4 Bingh. 669; People v. Com'rs of Taxes, 23 N. Y. 242; quasi-corporations; Sedgw. Stat. & Const. L. 372 ; L. R. 5 App. Cas. 857; territorial corpo rations; Seymour v. School District, 53 Conn. 507, 3 Atl. 552 ; and foreign corporations; People v. McLean, 80 N. Y. 259; under stat utes, forbidding the taking of property with out due process of law and giving to all persons the equal protection of the laws; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 18 Sup. Ct. 418, 42 L. Ed. 819; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150, 17 Sup. Ct. 255, 41 L. Ed. 666; concerning claims arising from In dian depredations ; U. S. v. Transp. Co., 164 U. S. 686, 17 Sup. Ct. 206, 41 L. Ed. 599; relating to taxation and the revenue laws; People v. McLean, 80 N. Y. 254 ; to attach, ments; Bray v. Wallingford, 20 Conn. 416; usurious contracts; Philadelphia Loan Co. v. Towner, 13 Conn. 249; applying to limitation of actions ; Olcott v. R. Co., 20 N. Y. 210, 75 Am. Dec. 393 ; North Mo. R. Co. v. Akers, 4 Kan. 453, 96 Am. Dec. 183; and concerning the admissibility as a witness of a party in his own behalf when the opposite party is nving person ; La Farge v. Ins. Co., 22 N. Y. 352. A corporation is also a person under a penal statute ; U. S. v. Amedy, 11 Wheat. (U. S.) 392, 6 L. Ed. 502. Corporations are "persons" as that word is used in the first clause of the XIVth Amendment ; Coving ton & L. Turnp. Co. v. Sandford, 164 U. S. 578, 17 Sup. Ct. 198, 41 L. Ed. 560; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 18 Sup. Ct. 418, 42 L. Ed. 819 ; People v. Fire Ass'n, 92 N. Y. 311, 44 Am. Rep. 380; U. S. v. Supply Co., 215 U. S. 50, 30 Sup. Ct. 15, 54 L. Ed. 87; contra, Central P. R. Co. v. Board, 60 Cal. 35. But a corporation of another state is not a "per son" within the jurisdiction of the state un til it has complied with the conditions of admission to do business in the state; Fire" Ass'n of Phila. v. New York, 119 U. S. 110,
7 Sup. Ct. 108, 30 L. Ed. 342 ; and a statutory requirement of such conditions is not in con flict with the XIVth Amendment ; Pembina Consol. S. M. & M. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181, 189, 8 Sup. Ct. 737, 31 L. Ed. 650.
It has been held that when the word per son is used in a legislative act, natural per sons will be intended unless something ap pear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons; Blair v. Worley, 1 Scam. (111.) 178 ; Appeal of Fox, 112 Pa. 337, 4 Atl. 149; but as a rule corporations will be considered persons within the statutes un less the intention of the legislature is mani festly to exclude them ; Stribbling v. Bank, 5 Rand. (Va.) 132.
A county is a person in a legal sense; Lan caster 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; but contra within the meaning of a statute, providing a penalty for the fraudulent alteration of a public record with intent that any "person" be defrauded; Martin v. State, 24 Tex. 61; and within the meaning of a covenant for quiet and peace ful possession against all and every person or persons ; Giddings v. Holter, 19 Mont. 263, 48 Pac. 8. An Indian is a person ; U. S. v. Crook, 5 Dill. 459, Fed. Cas. No. 14,891; and a slave was so considered, in so far, as to be capable of commit ting a riot In conjunction with white men; State v. Thackam, 1 Bay (S. C.) 358. The estate of a decedent is a person ; Billings v. State, 107 Ind. 54, 6 N. E. 914, 7 N. E. 763, 57 Am. Rep. 77; and where the statute makes the owner of a dog liable for injuries to any person, it includes the property of such per son; Brewer v. Crosby, 11 Gray (Mass.) 29; but where the statute provided damages for the bite of a dog which had previously bitten a person, it was held insufficient to show that the dog had previously bitten a goat; [1896] 2 Q. B. 109 ; a dog will not be includ ed in the word in an act which authorizes a person to kill dogs running at large; Heis rodt v. Hackett, 34 Mich. 283, 22 Am. Rep. 529.