actio personalis moritur cum persona

 

ACTIO PERSONALIS MORITUR CUM PERSONA 

ORIGIN AND DEFINITION

ACTIO PERSONALIS MORITUR CUM PERSONA IS AN OFFICIAL TERM OF LATIN ORIGIN. ACTIO MEANS 'ACTION / ACTIONS, PERSONAIS MEANS 'PERSONAL', MORITUR MEANS 'DEATH', CUM MEANS 'NO' AND PERSONA MEANS 'PERSON' AND THE PHRASE LITERALLY MEANS, PERSONAL RIGHTS / CAUSE OF ACTION DIES WITH A PERSON.

DEFINITION

CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF LEGAL REASONS FOR ACTION CANNOT BE BROUGHT AFTER A PERSON'S DEATH. IT MEANS THAT THE PERSONAL CAUSE OF THE ACTION DIES WITH THE PERSON AND CANNOT BE EXECUTED ON HIS OR HER LEGAL HEIRS OR OTHER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES.

APPLICATION

UNDER NORMAL LAW, ANY DAMAGE DONE TO A PERSON OR PROPERTY HAS BEEN ACQUIRED ONLY IN THE FORM OF DAMAGES AND THEN THE PERSONAL RIGHT TO ACTION OF THE INJURED PERSON HAS BEEN TERMINATED BY THE DEATH OF THE INJURED PERSON. FOR EXAMPLE, OFFENSIVE SUITS.

THE PRINCIPLE APPLIES TO PRIVATE NATURAL CONTRACTS. THEY ALSO DIE THE DEATH OF ANY CONTRACT PARTY. FOR EXAMPLE, PROMISE TO GET MARRIED, PAINT A PICTURE, ETC. SUCH AGREEMENTS ARE IN VAIN IF ANY PARTY DIES.

DIFFERENT FROM MAXIM

CONTRACTS: APART FROM PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS, THE MAXIM ACTIO PERSONALIS MORITUR CUM PERSONA DOES NOT APPLY TO OTHER TYPES OF CONTRACTS AND IN THOSE CASES, THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED ORGANIZATION WILL BE PROSECUTED FOR DOING THE SAME.

IMPROPER COUNSELING OF A TORTFEASOR ESTATE: IN THE EVENT THAT A PERSON UNFAIRLY OCCUPIES AND DIES BEFORE THE PROPERTY IS RESTORED, THE PERSON WHOSE PROPERTY HAS BEEN IMPROPERLY DISTRIBUTED WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE DECEASED REPRESENTATIVES.

ILLUSTRATION TO EXPLAIN 

A, THE FAMOUS SINGER SIGNS A SINGING CONTRACT AT THE B RECEPTION CEREMONY IN JULY. A MET WITH AN ACCIDENT IN JUNE AND WAS UNABLE TO ARRIVE. IN THIS CASE, B CANNOT ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AGAINST A'S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES.

A, IMPROPERLY GIVES PLACE B. A DIES LATER. B CAN EXERCISE HIS RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF A.

CRIMINAL CASE RULES

IN THE CASE OF HAMBLY V. TROTT IS KNOWN AS ONE OF THE INITIATIVES BEHIND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THIS SYSTEM. IT IS IN THIS CONTEXT THAT THE POLICY DOES NOT APPLY IN THE CASE OF CONTRACTS (OTHER THAN THOSE INVOLVING PERSONAL SERVICE OR THE ABILITY OF THE SERVICE PROVIDER) AND UNFOUNDED ENRICHMENT.

IN THE CASE OF GIRJA NANDINI AND ORS. V. BRIJENDRA NARAIN CHAUDHARY, THE LEGAL TERM WAS REFERRED TO AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE TERM ACTIO PERSONALIS MORITUR CUM PERSONA HAS LIMITED FUNCTIONALITY.

CONCLUSION 

THIS LEGAL MAXIM  IMPLIES THAT IF  A PERSON IS DEAD, HIS CONDUCT OF TORT AND CONTRACT TERMINATES AND ALL HIS DUTIES AND REMEDIES ARE DESTROYED. STILL, IN DUE COURSE OF TIME, THE RULE WAS REVERSED BY THE LAW REFORMED (MISC. PROVS.) ACT, 1934 – “ ON THE DEATH OF ANY PERSON-ALL CAUSES OF CONDUCT VESTED IN HIM SHALL SURVIVE FOR THE BENEFIT OF HIS ESTATE”. THEREFORE, ALL CAUSES OF CONDUCT IN TORT, SAY FOR DEFAMATION AND THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FOR PENALTY SURVIVED ARE DEPARTED. DEFAMATION , ATTACK OR ASSAULT, AND PARTICULAR DAMAGES ARE THREE EXCEPTIONS OF THIS LEGAL MAXIM . IT IS JUST AND A PRINCIPLE USED IN THE CASES OF LAW OF TORTS IN COMMON LAW .