Also known as:principals · principalis · main party · capital sum
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
4 senses
1
in agency law
A person who authorizes an agent to act on the person's behalf and is bound by acts done in accordance with the person's manifestations of consent. The principal controls the scope of authority granted to the agent.
2
Sense 1
1
in agency law
A person who authorizes an agent to act on the person's behalf and is bound by acts done in accordance with the person's manifestations of consent. The principal controls the scope of authority granted to the agent.
Examples2
Agent Binds Corporation
Paragon Construction authorizes its project manager to sign subcontracts up to five hundred thousand dollars. The manager signs a subcontract with a supplier for three hundred thousand dollars of materials. Paragon is bound as principal because the manager acted within the scope of authority manifested by the corporation.
Coronation Viewing Contract
Paige Porter rents a flat overlooking the coronation route for a large sum. Both parties understand the sole purpose is to view the procession. When the coronation is postponed, Paige's remaining duty to pay is discharged because the principal purpose of the contract has been frustrated.
Sense 2
2
in criminal law
A person who personally commits the act or omission that constitutes the criminal offense or who is present and aids in its commission. At common law this participant is distinguished from accessories before or after the fact.
Sources & Authorities· 1 source
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Course Outlines
Examples
Sense 3
3
in trusts and estates
The corpus or res of a trust, as distinguished from income generated by the trust assets.
Sources & Authorities· 2 sources
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Hornbooks
Study Supplements
Sense 4
4
for jurisdictional purposes
The state in which a corporation's high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate its activities, typically its headquarters. This location determines corporate citizenship for diversity jurisdiction together with the state of incorporation.
Examples3
President Seeks Written Opinion
The President directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a written opinion on whether a proposed military action complies with statutory limits. The Secretary prepares and delivers the opinion as requested. The exchange illustrates the President's constitutional authority to require opinions from principal officers in the executive departments.
A person who personally commits the act or omission that constitutes the criminal offense or who is present and aids in its commission. At common law this participant is distinguished from accessories before or after the fact.
3
in trusts and estates
The corpus or res of a trust, as distinguished from income generated by the trust assets.
4
for jurisdictional purposes
The state in which a corporation's high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate its activities, typically its headquarters. This location determines corporate citizenship for diversity jurisdiction together with the state of incorporation.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
1
Dispatcher Orders Fatigued Driver
Lena, the dispatcher for Metro Regional Bus Lines, knows driver Carlos has already worked sixteen hours and is nodding off. She orders him to complete an overnight route despite his protests. When Carlos falls asleep and kills a pedestrian, Lena faces homicide charges as the principal whose reckless conduct caused the death.
Frequently Asked2
How does the criminal-law definition of principal differ from the agency definition?+
In criminal law the principal is the person who actually commits the offense or is present and aids its commission. In agency law the principal is the person who authorizes an agent to act and is bound by the agent's authorized acts. The two senses share the idea of primary responsibility but operate in entirely separate doctrinal contexts.
Can a person be both a principal and an accessory in the same criminal transaction?+
No. At common law a person who personally commits the offense is classified as a principal in the first degree. Accessories before the fact aid the crime but are not present. Modern statutes have largely abolished the old distinctions, yet the core concept of the principal as the actual perpetrator remains.
Supporting sources
Frequently Asked1
What is the difference between principal and income in a trust?+
Principal refers to the corpus or res of the trust itself. Income refers to the earnings generated by that corpus. Trustees must distinguish the two when making distributions because many trust instruments limit distributions of income to current beneficiaries while preserving principal for remaindermen.
Supporting sources
Prism Analytics, incorporated in Delaware with headquarters in California, faces a products-liability suit in Texas. The company maintains substantial sales offices in Texas but directs all strategic decisions from California. The court lacks general jurisdiction because Texas is not the corporation's principal place of business.
Diversity Citizenship Dispute
Pacific Bank, incorporated in New York, maintains its headquarters and executive offices in Illinois. A customer sues the bank in federal court in Ohio. For diversity purposes the bank is a citizen of New York and Illinois, the states of incorporation and principal place of business.
Frequently Asked1
Why does the location of a corporation's principal place of business matter for diversity jurisdiction?+
A corporation is deemed a citizen of both its state of incorporation and the state of its principal place of business. That dual citizenship determines whether complete diversity exists between the parties. The principal place of business is the nerve center where high-level officers direct and coordinate corporate activities.
410 U.S. 113 (1973)Constitutional Law
…standing to undertake this litigation, that the Does and Dr. Hallford had not, and that the case is not now moot. I The principal thrust of appellant's attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by a pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Appellant would…