Property Outline
I. Acquisition by Capture
a. Pierson v. Post (1805) – What constitutes occupancy of an animal?
For occupancy, ct found that you need an
(1) unequivocal intention of appropriating the animal to his individual use, (2) has deprived him of his natural liberty and
(3) brought him within his certain control.
i. Policy behind ruling is that society needs to rid of foxes plus increase hunters expectation and minimize quarrels and ecourage better hunter strategy/competition, dissent argues for a ‘reasonable prospect of catching’ rule à rid of noxious beasts.
b. Keeble v. Hickeringill – Does action lie for discharging weapon to scare fowl
Court found that where a violent or malicious act (socially undesirable goal) is
done to hinder a mans profession an action lies.
i. Policy is avoiding the malicious interference with trade, creating competition is adding to market versus simply interfering with trade with no purpose.
c. Ratione Soli – trumps occupancy – view that an owner of land has constructive possession of wild animals on the owners land, landowners regarded as prior possessors of any animals ferae naturae (undomesticated) on their land until the animal leaves. (west has more land)
i. West vs. East – In West, do have right to trespass and hunt unless No Trespassing posted. In east, apply ratione soli.
d. Property rights are relative (not absolute). Animus revertendi trumps occupancy.
i. Animus revertendi – an animal has developed the intent to return to its owner (domesticated animals)
ii. Burden of risk of loss is on the owners to establish bc they have a better opportunity to establish their ownership.
e. Once one has established occupancy, how does one lose occupancy?
i. When you lose certain control and the animal returns to its natural its habitat you lose occupancy.
ii. Policy is need to protect owners to avoid thieves from simply killing animals to establish occupancy.
II. Acquisition by Creation
a. You can have property rights in tangible object but not intangible rights suc has ideas unless protected by IP or patent rules.
b. Property in One’s Person
i. Moore v. Regents of UC – The ct found that Moore had no property rights to his discarded cells or any profits made from them. However, the ct concluded that the research physician did have an obligation to reveal his financial interest in the materials harvested from Moore, and that Moore would be allowed to bring a claim for any injury that he sustained as a result of the physician’s failure to disclose those circumstances
c. Intellectual Property
i. INS v. AP – Despite the desire to create competition btw companies, the time lag in the East v West markets took away from the lead time protection afforded to AP. Ct further held that although it involved misappropriation rather than misrepresentation, defendant’s strategy amounted to unfair competition in business and restrained defendant from taking or gainfully using any of complainant’s news until its commercial value as news had passed away.
ii. Cheney Bros v. Doris Silk – Plaintiff sued defendant for relief under the copyright laws for defendant’s copying of plaintiff’s design, which had not been copyrighted. Ct found that lead time protection is all you are afforded. (this case diff from AP bc of increased time involved in production leads to not so immediate turn around). Property rights are much more limited with respect to ideas.
1. Policy is to avoid market collapse and competition is the life blood of a thriving market. No lead time would lead to companies being afraid of entering the market – Wendell criticizes argument with Oscar dress example.
iii. The bundle of rights – the right to possess, use, exclude or transfer
iv. Jacque – The court enforces the right to exclude based on the policy of avoiding ‘self-help.’
1. Right to exclude is a relative right, the public policy is determinative
v. Shack – Works off of Jacque, here no right to exclude state services from providing aid to migrant farmers.
III.Subsequent Possession
a. By Find
i. Armory v. Delamirie – chimney sweep found jewel and took the jeweler who kept the jewel. Ct found that property rights are relative and the finder of property has rights over everyone except for the rightful owner (or someone with superior claim).
1. Policy that need to protect possession in order to avoid stealing (first in time first in right) regardless of how possession is obtained.
ii. Finder does not acquire title/ownership, just possession.
iii. Thieves cannot pass good title, bailees can. True owner has a responsibility to check up on bailee (ie jewelry) and purchaser has a duty to inquire into seller (to make sure not a thief).
iv. Where does finder fall in? More like a thief or more like a bailee? No consensus, however more likely to not allow transfer of title (avoid thieves claiming they are finders)
v. Subsequent bonafide purchaser without notice can sometimes transfer title. (can trump 1st in time 1st in right)
vi. Trover v. Replevin. Trover is an action for money damages, replevin is an action for the goods.
vii. Hannah v. Peel – Def did not know anything about brooch found by P while P was occupying home. Dispute over P for finding brooch vs. property owner (since brooch was on his land. Court looked at numerous cases to get an answer.
1. Bridges v. Hawkesworth, P found a box full of cash on the floor of a business and the D took the box and P asked him to hold it until the owner claimed it, 3 years later, noone claimed the $ and the P sought it back. The ct in Bridges looked to the Armory v. Delamirie case and likened the Ps situation to finding the box outside the shop as it was incidentally dropped in the shop and by handing the notes to D he was not waiving his title in them. à Public v. private – wide spectrum of what is public/private
2. South Stafforshire, rings were found in mud of pool, the ct held that the possessor of land is entitled against the finder to chattels found on the land (landowner expectation).
3. Elwes v. Brigg Gas the ruling also held that the land possessor was entitled to anything on his land whether he knew of it or not regardless of agent/employee issue.
a. Attachment doctrine – landowner entitled to all things (chattel) in, on or under his property regardless of knowledge. Strongest for embedded in or under and weaker on top.
In the end, the ct followed the Bridges case. Ct took issue that if the owner has not moved in to the house he is held not to be in constructive possession of objects on the land of which he is not aware.
viii. Public Policy leads towards finding the true owner of the property, finder would have duty t
u actually possess plus the land you constructively possess via the defective written instrument.
1. Lots need to be owned by same owner & contiguous for color of title
2. If claiming adverse pos w/out color of title, you get the land which you actually adversely possess.
3. Actual possession trumps adverse possession which trumps constructive possession.
4. (Actual possession + constructive) trumps (adverse + constructive)
vi. Relation back doctrine – once you satisfy all of the elements, you get title from the time you actually entered the land.
vii. Manillo v. Gorski – Sidewalk mistakenly protrudes onto neighbors land. Claims by adverse possession. If mistaken, how can establish claim of right? (Conn. Rule- objective, Maine rule – subjective, bad faith)
1. Objective approach – do not care about adverse possessors state of mind (spotlight on true owner). Action is relevant, not state of mind. Too high burden for true owner to have boundaries checked every time neighbor does work on home, 15 inches is not open and notorious. Need to show actual knowledge by true owner. (modern tendency is to ease the plight of the innocent improver, ie force conveyance or let landowner buy improvement)
2. Minor Encroachment – need knowledge of encroachment of land.
viii. 3 other ways to settle boundary disputes
1. Agreed Boundaries – oral agreement enforceable if accept for long period of time
2. Acquiescence – implied agreed boundaries for extended period of time
3. Estoppel – when changed reliance based on representations (express or implied) by landowner (avoid unfairness)
4. If these do not work either – do you remove concrete or buy the land? If good faith improver (even if lose adverse possession case) give parties option to either buy the land or buy the improvement. If bad faith improver (and lose adverse possession claim), lose the improvement. (common law much more harsh, built on wrong land good faith or not became property of landowner.
ix. Relative hardship – look at value of improvement and decide if undue hardship exists to remove, let adverse possessor keep land (or vice versa) Very fact sensitive.
x. Howard v. Kunto – Lots shifted over. Adverse possession continuous if a summer home? Ct. says summer alone is sufficient (as long as that is norm for that type of property). Next issue relies on length of continuous adverse possession of statutory period. “Tacking” (successive adverse possession) is generally permitted as long is there is privity, an appropriate relationship btwn successive adverse possessors.
1. Privity approaches
a. SOL (English) approach – true owner knew or should have known, no successive gap btwn adverse possessors
