Property I Outline

Property
 
The term property is extraordinarily difficult to define. The ordinary person defines property as things that are owned by people. However, the law defines property as rights among people that concern things. The term is socially contingent.
 
Scope of Property Rights
 
Under our legal system, property rights are limited, not absolute. They exist only to the extent that they serve a socially useful justification.
 
Property as a “Bundle of Rights”
 
It is common to describe property as a “bundle of rights” in relation to things. The most important rights in this metaphorical bundle are: (1) the right to exclude; (2) the right to transfer; and (3) the right to use and possess.
 
Defining Property: Rights in What “Things”?
 
Real property consists of rights in land and anything attached to the land (e.g., buildings, signs, fences, or trees). Personal property consists of rights in things other than land. There are two main types of personal property: chattels (tangible, visible personal property such as jewelry, livestock, cars, and books) and intangible personal property (invisible, intangible things such as stocks, bonds, patents, debts, and other contract rights).
 
  
Syllabus, Part I.
First Acquisitions of (Personal) Property
 
A. CAPTURE
 
The Capture Rule
No one owns wild animals in their natural habitats. Under the common law capture rule, property rights in such animals are acquired only through physical possession. The first person to kill or capture a wild animal acquires title to it.
 
Evaluation of the Capture Rule
Today the capture rule is condemned by legal scholars for the same reason that once supported it: it encourages the destruction of wild animals.
 
Defining “Capture:” Pierson v. Post:
Post, a hunter, found and pursued a fox over vacant land. Pierson, fully aware that Post was chasing the fox, killed it himself. When Post sued Pierson for the value of the fox, the court held that Pierson was the true owner, because he had been the first to actually kill or capture the fox, however rude his action may have been.
Majority: Mere pursuit is not enough. Post must have possession of fox to consider it his because possession allows for certainty whereas pursuit is open to speculation and degrees of certainty versus uncertainty.
Three ways to obtain possession:
(1) Actual Physical Possession (in your hands);
(2) Mortally wounding and continuing pursuit; or
(3) Capture as to render escape impossible.
Dissent: (1) Customs of the sport should determine ownership; (2) Society is better served by recognizing property right in wild animals like a fox when there is a reasonable likelihood of capture because doing so would encourage and increase the destruction of a greater number of foxes.
Policy goals dictate property rights in this case.
 
Keeble v. Hickeringill: Court ruled that Hickeringill’s act of frightening away the ducks from Keeble’s decoy pond was a malicious act that was actionable because he frightened and thus did not lure them with other means – he did not use fair tactics. Damages were for the disturbance, not the loss of the fowl. The distinction here is that in Pierson the parties were competing, but in this case, the defendant was trying to damnify the plaintiff. Thus, this is policy issue.
 
Release or Escape After Capture:
In general, ownership rights end when a wild animal escapes or is released into the wild. However, if a captured wild animal is tamed such that it has the habit of returning from the wild to its captor, it is still owned by the captor.
 
Habit of Return: If you have an animal that is trained to return to YOU, then that animal is considered owned by you. If you capture an animal that thereafter loses its inclination to return to captivity once it escapes, that animal is still yours because you made an effort to secure its captivity. The idea is that if you see a kangaroo jumping down the street, your reasoning should lend itself to the idea that it is somebody’s pet. However, if the animal is rare/unlikely to be reasoned in such a manner, then killing that animal (even though it belongs to someone else) may be reasonable, but the court may still demand its carcass be returned. Damages in such a case would be a tort, not a property issue.
 
Rights of Landowners: Constructive Possession: English law held that the owner of land was in constructive possession of the wild animals on the land. American courts reject this view; here, a landowner owns no rights in wild animals on her land. However, because an owner may bar hunters and others from trespassing on her land, this gives an American landowner the exclusive opportunity to capture wild animals on the land, subject of course to hunting laws.
Example: A bunny on Owen’s land is constructively owned by Owen and if Terry trespasses for the purpose of capturing the bunny, and even though Owen did not possess the bunny, he had constructive ownership of all animals on property. Consequently, the trespass results in taking Owen’s property (bunny). However, even though it is Owen’s, he cannot trespass to regain possession. *Sometimes courts will say that the owner of property can enter the land of another who has taken the owner’s property if for the purpose of taking back stolen property.
Because Terry had the bunny first, even though Owen still owns it, Terry would win. L < T < O… Owen has best title, followed by Terry, then Lolly. Thus, it is not necessarily WHO owns it, but rather, WHO has better title?   Regulation by Government Modern game laws and other government restrictions have substantially eroded—thought not erased—the capture rule. Despite the breadth of these regulations, however, state and federal governments do not “own” wild animals in a proprietary sense.   Oil & Gas: The capture principals applied to wild animals have been applied to these natural resources too.   B. CREATION   Two Types: 1.      Intellectual Property – “think it”. 2.      “Property & Ideas”   Cheney Brothers v. Doris Silk Corp.: A man's property is limited to the chattels which embody his invention.  Others may imitate these at their pleasure. ·         Facts: PL is the original creator of a piece of silk work; DF is the alleged copycat. Cheney Bros. makes silk products with designs, which usually stay in store stock for the remainder of a particular sales season.  It's unknown which ones are more popular at the time of production or release.  Nonetheless, DF copied, and sold at a reduced rate to PL's, one of PL's designs. ·         Issue(s): Under property law, does one business's reprinting or copying of another product which is then sold at a cheaper price, affect business in such a way that it is so inequitable as to warrant a remedy? ·         Holding: No, there is no general law or common law rule which governs that one person's chattel may be copied and sold as another's own product. ·         Court's Rationale/Reasoning:  The court finds Cheney wants to receive just "a little" equitable relief here, however there is no such thing as "a little."  There is either full relief or none at all.  This is a case where there is no relief available. PL relies on In