Definition
Rights of persons are the legally recognized rights that attach to individuals by virtue of their status as persons — human beings recognized by the law as subjects capable of holding rights and bearing obligations. The concept functions as a structural category within classical legal taxonomy, organizing the whole body of private law around two foundational questions: what belongs to persons, and what belongs to things.
In the tradition derived from Roman law and systematized by Blackstone, the entire common law is divided into rights of persons and rights of things (jura rerum). Rights of persons encompasses not only the universal rights held by all natural persons — the right to personal security, personal liberty, and private property — but also the particular rights and duties that arise from the legal relations a person stands in: husband, wife, parent, child, guardian, ward, master, servant. Status, in other words, generates its own bundle of legally enforceable rights.
The Latin form, jura personarum, appears in Burrill and connects the concept explicitly to the Roman law framework that shaped Blackstone's Commentaries.
---
Common Confusion
Rights of persons is sometimes treated as interchangeable with civil rights or human rights, but these are not the same. Civil rights refers to specific legally protected entitlements against state action, often grounded in constitutional or statutory text. Human rights is a modern term rooted in international law and moral philosophy. Rights of persons, by contrast, is an organizational category from private law taxonomy — a way of sorting the legal universe, not a normative claim about which rights deserve protection. A researcher encountering the phrase in a 19th-century treatise should read it as structural rather than political.
Rights of persons is also distinct from legal personality. Legal personality is the threshold question of whether an entity (corporation, trust, unborn child) is recognized by law as capable of holding rights at all. Rights of persons addresses what rights attach once personhood is established.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term is primarily an organizing concept — a heading under which Blackstone, and the common law tradition following him, arranged the bulk of what we now call private law, family law, and the law of status. Researchers will encounter it most often in treatises, digests, and legal encyclopedias from the 18th and 19th centuries, where it functions as a chapter title or subject heading rather than a term of art with operative legal force.
The critical navigational point: when a historical source invokes rights of persons, it is telling you where you are in the architecture of the law, not defining a specific rule. Follow that structural signal to locate discussions of personal liberty, the incidents of marriage and parentage, the rights of aliens versus citizens, and the legal disabilities attached to various statuses (infancy, coverture, servitude). Much of what is now dispersed across constitutional law, family law, employment law, and civil rights law was gathered under this single heading in pre-20th-century sources.
Coverture presents a particular research trap. Under 19th-century law, married women's rights of persons were substantially curtailed by operation of the husband-wife merger doctrine. Treatise discussions of rights of persons in that period may describe as settled law what has since been entirely repudiated — the Married Women's Property Acts beginning in the mid-19th century, and the constitutional developments of the 20th century, dismantled most of those disabilities. A source that reads as descriptive of the law may be describing a legal world that no longer exists.
Researchers should also be alert to the status-based structure underlying this term. The historical law of rights of persons was deeply relational — rights varied dramatically depending on one's status category. Modern law has largely displaced status with contract and constitutional equality norms, which means that the category of rights of persons, while still useful as an organizing frame, does not map cleanly onto contemporary doctrine.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
All four source dictionaries — Black's (both editions), Bouvier's, and Burrill's — reproduce the same single-sentence definition drawn verbatim from Blackstone's Commentaries, Book I, Chapter 1: "Rights which concern and are annexed to the persons of men." The unanimity is itself informative: this is a received term of art from a canonical source, transmitted without elaboration or updating across more than a century of legal lexicography.
Burrill adds the Latin equivalent, jura personarum, which none of the others supply. That addition confirms the Roman law lineage and signals that the term was understood by sophisticated practitioners as part of a civilian taxonomy, not merely common law vocabulary.
What the historical dictionaries do not do: they do not trace the evolution of the concept after Blackstone, they do not address the erosion of status-based rights distinctions, and they offer no guidance on how the category maps to modern doctrinal fields. A researcher relying solely on these entries would know the phrase's origin but not its limits.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Law Mind Family Law Encyclopedia: Marriage — Rights and Obligations of Married Persons (family_13) — directly relevant; addresses the rights that historically fell under the rights of persons framework in the spousal relationship context.
The Law Mind Intellectual Property Encyclopedia: Justifications for Intellectual Property — Utilitarian, Natural Rights, and Personality Theories (ip_2) — relevant for researchers tracing how personality-based theories of rights developed from the rights of persons tradition into modern IP doctrine.
---