I found this info over at another site. For those of you who dont believe in the strawman, well guess who does? The Courts!
Cases Juristic Person!
1. FindLaw: CONTINENTAL GRAIN CO. v. BARGE FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19 (1960)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/364/19.html
Highlight Hits
consistent and logical." Holmes, The Common Law (1881), 26-27.
[ Footnote 15 ] "Such personification of the vessel, treating it as a juristic person whose acts and omissions, although brought about by her personnel, are personal acts of the ship for which, as a juristic person, she is legally ...
________________________________________
... treating it as a juristic person whose acts and omissions, although brought about by her personnel, are personal acts of the ship for which, as a juristic person, she is legally responsible, has long been recognized by this Court." Canadian Aviator, Ltd., v. United States, 324 U.S. 215, 224 .
2. FindLaw: UNITED STATES v. COOPER CORPORATION, 312 U.S. 600 (1941)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/312/600.html
Highlight Hits
... shall recover three fold the damages by him sustained, and the costs of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee.'
The United States is a juristic person in the sense that it has capacity to sue upon contracts made with it or in vindication of its property rights. The Sherman Act, however, created new ...
3. FindLaw: U.S. V. SCOPHONY CORP. OF AMERICA , 333 U.S. 795 (1948)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/333/795.html
Highlight Hits
enforce its rights. See e.g., Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick, 52 L.R.I.A. 245 (1925). Attribution of legal rights and duties to a juristic person other than man is necessarily a metaphorical process. And none the worse for it. No doubt, 'metaphors in law are to be narrowly watched,' Cardozo, ...
4. FindLaw: CANADIAN AVIATOR v. UNITED STATES, 324 U.S. 215 (1945)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/324/215.html
Highlight Hits
although the actual cause is the negligence of the personnel in the operation of the ship. Such personsification of the vessel, treating it as a juristic person whose acts and omissions, although brought about by her personnel, are personal acts of the ship for which, as a juristic person, she is legally ...
________________________________________
... treating it as a juristic person whose acts and omissions, although brought about by her personnel, are personal acts of the ship for which, as a juristic person, she is legally responsible, has long been recognized by this Court. United States v. The Malek Adhel, 2 How. 210, 233, 234; The China, 7 Wall. 53,
5. FindLaw: HOPKINS FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASS'N v. CLEARY, 296 U.S. 315 (1935)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/296/315.html
Highlight Hits
also to put an end to corporations created by the states and turn them into different corporations created by the nation.
A corporation is a juristic person organized by government to accomplish certain ends, which may be public or quasi public, though for other purposes of classification the corporation ...
6. FindLaw: CLARK v. WILLIARD, 292 U.S. 112 (1934)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/292/112.html
Highlight Hits
Bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings, whether the debtor is a natural or a juristic person, confer upon the receiver or assignee a title which, generally speaking, is without recognition outside of the state of his appointment except in subordination to the claims of local creditors. Security Trust Co. v. Dodd, Mead & Co., 173 U.S. 624 , 19 S.Ct. 545
7. FindLaw: UNITED STATES v. CANDELARIA, 271 U.S. 432 (1926)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/271/432.html
Highlight Hits
It was settled in Lane v. Pueblo of Santa Rosa, 249 U.S. 110 , 39 S. Ct. 185, that under territorial laws enacted with congressional sanction each pueblo in New Mexico-meaning the Indians comprising the community-became a juristic person and enabled to sue and defend in respect of [271 U.S. 432, 443] its lands
8. FindLaw: LANE v. PUEBLO OF SANTA ROSA , 249 U.S. 110 (1919)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/249/110.html
Highlight Hits
If the plaintiff was not a legal entity and juristic person before, it became such under that law; and it retained that status after Congress included it in the territory of Arizona, for the act by which this was done extended to that territory all legislative enactments of the territory of New Mexico. Act Feb. 24, 1863, c. 56, 12 Stat. 664. The fact that Arizona has since become a state does not affect the plaintiff's corporate status or its power to sue. See Kansas Pacific R. R. Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. R. Co., 112 U.S. 414 , 5 Sup. Ct. 208.
9. FindLaw: HOPKINS v. CLEMSON AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 221 U.S. 636 (1911)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/221/636.html
Highlight Hits
On the contrary, the statute created an entity, a corporation, a juristic person, whose right to hold and use property was coupled with the provision that it might sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, in its corporate name.
10. FindLaw: VILAS v. CITY OF MANILA, 220 U.S. 345 (1911)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/220/345.html
Highlight Hits
The plaintiffs in error, who were plaintiffs below, are creditors of the city of Manila as it existed before the cession of the Philippine Islands to the United States by the treaty of Paris, December 10, 1898 [30 Stat. at L. 1754]. Upon the theory that the city, under its present charter from the government of the Philippine Islands, is the same juristic person and liable upon the obligations of the old city, these actions were brought against it. The supreme court of the Philippine Islands denied relief, holding that the present municipality is a totally different corporate entity, and in no way liable for the debts of the Spanish municipality. [220 U.S. 345, 352] The fundamental question is whether, notwithstanding the cession of the Philippine Islands to the United States, followed by a reincorporation of the city, the present municipality is liable for the obligations of the city incurred prior to the cession to the United States.
We shall confine ourselves to the question whether the plaintiffs in error are entitled to judgments against the city upon their several claims. Whether there is a remedy adequate to the collection when reduced to judgment is not presented by the record. But whether there is or is not a remedy affords no reason why the plaintiffs in error may not reduce their claims to judgment. Mt. Pleasant v. Beckwith, 100 U.S. 514, 530 , 25 S. L. ed. 699, 703. The city confessedly may be sued under its existing charter, and that implies at least a right to judgment if they establish their demands.
The city as now incorporated has succeeded to all of the property rights of the old city and to the right to enforce all of its causes of action. There is identity of purpose between the Spanish and American charters and substantial identity of municipal powers. The area and the inhabitants incorporated are substantially the same. But for the change of sovereignty which has occurred under the treaty of Paris, the question of the liability of the city under its new charter for the debts of the old city would seem to be of easy solution. The principal question would therefore seem to be the legal consequence of the cession referred to upon the property rights and civil obligations of the city incurred before the cession. And so the question was made to turn in the court below upon the consequence of a change in sovereignty and a re-incorporation of the city by the substituted sovereignty.
11. UNITED STATES v SCOPHONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA Et Al No. 41, Supreme Court of The United States, 333 U.S 795; 68 S Ct. 855; 1948 U.S. Lexis 2851; 92 L Ed 1091; 77 U.S.P.Q.
“ From the earliest times the law has enforced rights and exacted liabilities by utilizing a corporate concept – by juristic persons other than human beings. --- Law has also responded to religious needs in recognizing juristic persons other than human beings. --- Attribution of legal rights and duties to a juristic person other than a man is necessarily a metaphorical process.
12. UNITED STATES v COOPER CORPORATION ET AL No. 484 Supreme Court of the United States, 312 U.S. 600; 61 S Ct. 742; 1941 U.S. Lexis 1088; 85 L Ed 1071
While the United States is a juristic person in the sense that it can sue upon its contracts or in a vindication of its property rights, the term “person” does not include the sovereign, in common usage, nor, ordinarily, when employed in statutes.
13. UNITED STATES v CANDELARIA Et Al, No. 208 Supreme Court of the United States, 271 U.S. 432; 46 S. Ct. 561; 1926 U.S. Lexis 633; 70 L Ed. 1023
Under territorial laws, sanctioned by congress, a Pueblo community in New Mexico is a juristic person with capacity to sue and defend with respect to its lands.
14. HOPKINS v CLEMSON AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE OF SOUTH CAROLINA No. 70 Supreme Court of the United States, 221 U.S. 636; 31 S Ct. 654; 1911 U.S. Lexis 1762; 55 L Ed 890
On the contrary, the statute created an entity, a corporation, a juristic person, whose right to hold and sue property was coupled with the provision that it might sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, in its corporate name.
The Courts say you are a strawman!
