delivered the opinion of the court.
The plaintiff in error is a corporation of California, and the lessee, in possession, of a race-course kept as a place of public entertainment and amusement, and to which it was accustomed to issue tickets of admission'. The defendant- Greem berg purchased one of such tickets, and was admitted to the race-course. After being admitted he was ejected from the premises against his will by police officers, acting, it was alleged in the complaint, by .the direction of the plaintiff. The defendant denied responsibility for the acts of those officers.
It was sued by Greenberg in one of the courts of California, and thеre was a verdict and judgment against the Association for the sum of one thousand dollars. The case was taken to the Supremе Court of the State and the judgment was affirmed. 148 California, 126.
At the trial a question was raised as to the applicability to this case of a statute of California relating to the admission of persons holding tickets of admission to places of public *362 entertainment and amusement. That statute is as follows: “It shall be unlawful for.any corporation, person or association, or the proprietor, lessee, of the agents of éither, of any opera house, theatre, melodeon, museum,- circus, caravan, -race-course, fair, or other place of public amusement or entertainment, to refuse admittance to any persоn over the age of twehty-one years who presents a ticket, of admission acquired by -purchase, and who demandsadmission tо such place, provided that any.person under the influence of liquor, dr who is guilty of boisterous conduct, or any person of lеwd or immoral character, niay be excluded from any such place of amusement. Sec. 2.-. Any person who is refused admission to. any place of amusement, contrary to the proyisjons of this act, is entitled to recover from the proprietors, lessees or their agents, or from any person,. association, corporation, or the directors thereof, his actual, dаmage and $100 in addition thereto.”
.1. The record'sufficiently shows that iñ the' Supreme Court .of the State' the defendant questioned the validity, оf the statute in question under the Fourteenth Amendment, in that it “seeks to abridge the privileges and immunities ,of citizens of the United States, and to dеprive them of. liberty and property'-without .due process of law, and to deny to them, being within-its- jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws.” By the judgment below the validity of the statute- was sustained/ the court holding that it was a legitimate exertion of the police рower of the. State: The contention, that this court is without .jurisdiction to review that judgment is, therefore, overruled.
2. The Supreme Court оf the State in a previous decision between the same parties—Greenberg v. Western Turf Association, 140 California, 357, 360—held the statute to be.constitutional as a valid regulation imposed by the State in itexercise ..of. police-power. That'decision, we assume, from the opinion of the court, had refеrence only to the constitution oCalifornia t But this court can only pass upon- the validity of *363 the statute with reference to the Constitution of • the United States. We percеive no reason for holding it to be invalid under that instrument. The contention that it is unconstitutional as denying to the defendant the equal protection of the laws is without merit, for the statute is applicable alike to all persons, corporations or assoсiations conducting places of public amusement or entertainment. Of still less merit is the suggestion that the statute abridges the rights and privileges of citizens'; for a corporation cannot be deemed a citizen within the-meaning .of the clause of the Constitution оf the United States which protects the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States against being' abridged or impaired by the law оf á State.
The same, observation may be -made as to the contention that the statute deprives the defendant of its 'liberty without duе process of law-; for, the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment against deprivation without due process of law is the liberty of'natural, not artificial, persons.
Northwestern Life Insurance Co.
v.
Riggs,
Affirmed.