Outline
Real Property I
Property: Three Types
Real
Personal
Intellectual
Why Private Property?
Encourages Development
Controls Access
Avoids Conflict
Power/greed
Acquisition by Capture: Property in wild animals is only acquired by occupancy; pursuit alone does not constitute occupancy or vest any right in the pursuer.
Case: Pierson v. Post. This is a case where Post was hunting and pursuing a fox, when Pierson pursued the fox (knowing that it was being hunted by Post) and killed it and kept it for himself. Just because Post was in pursuit of the fox gave him no title to the fox (mere pursuit does not vest title); it was not until the fox was killed and carried away that it became Pierson’s property.
-Policy considerations- the consideration for this rule is to promote the best for society. The court felt that it would bring many useless suits if one had the right to wild animals as property just by pursuing them. The court felt this was the best rule to reduce unnecessary litigation and promote hunting.
Rule of First Posession: Who has it first is who has possession
Acquisition by Discovery: The sighting and discovering (finding) of unknown or uncharted territory and symbolically taking possession. The discoverer vested absolute title. First in Time rule.
Case: Johnson v McIntosh- This is the case where Johnson purchased land from the Indians under grants and the US granted the same land to McIntosh. Essentially the courts said that the Indians did not vest title in the land and therefore could not transfer title to Johnson. The court said that although the Indians were inhabitants of the land they retained title of occupancy, but they did not hold absolute title and therefore could not transfer title to others. The privilege of absolute title went to the discoverers (Americans).
– Basically they thought that you got ownership by putting your labor in the land (John Locke’s theory). If we left the land to the Indians it would be kept as wilderness and the court thought this was wasteful.
Haslem v. Lockwood-this is the case where the plaintiff raked heaps of manure and left them in the street intending to take them home the following day. Before he could take the manure home the defendant came by and hauled off the manure. The court found for the plaintiff saying that the manure originally belonged to the owners of the animals who dropped it, but it became abandoned property. As abandoned property it belonged to the first occupant, the plaintiff, who “had changed its original condition and greatly enhanced its value by his labor. IF a person finds abandoned property and greatly increases the value of the property through his labor or expense, he does not lose his right to the property if he leaves it for a reasonable time to find a way to remove the property.
Acquisition by Creation
Intellectual Property- this is not tangible property; it is an idea or something related to an idea. Ex. Books, movies, music…
3 major elements if intellectual property
1).Copyright- things that are written down- books, movies, songs, T.V) Essentially protection begins as soon as the thing is set down in a tangible medium, and it lasts for a long time- usually 70 years.
2). Patents- are granted for useful, non-obvious processes or product. Once issued patents last for 20 years from the date of the original application. Patents are not renewable and when the time expires they are open for exploitation by anyone in the public domain. Patents are limited to those useful and non-obvious ideas because we want to encourage inventions and new ideas.
3). Trademarks- are words and symbols indicting the source of a product or service; owners of marks are protected against the use of similar marks by others that would cause confusion to the consumer.
INS v. Associated Press- This is a case where the AP gathered news information and posted it on bulletins. The INS would then take the news from the bulletins and sell it as if it was there own. The AP sued INS saying that the news was there property because they did the work to gather it and were the first to report it and that INS had no right to resell it as there own. INS felt that because it was published (and now in the public) that it was no longer AP’s property.
– The court held that a business can’t take another business property and sell it as their own. The court distinctly says this has nothing to do with “news” as to the public; rather this is an issue between 2 competing businesses. (ex. If someone reads the news and tells the story to their friend it is a totally different matter).
– The court says this is a misappropriation of property- the unlawful use of another’s property or funds. The court says that INS is taking the property right at he point where money can be made; after AP has put in there labor time and skill.
– While the court says you can’t copyright news, this was unfair business practice by INS because they were reaping the benefit that AP put all of there work in. INS has to do their own labor.
Cheney Brother v. Doris Silk- This is a case where the Cheney designed and sold silk garments. Doris Silk than copied the designs and sold them for a lower price. Cheney brothers are not protected under any copyright or patent laws for protection of silk clothes patterns. Cheney brothers sued Doris Silk for damages and relief.
– The legislature did not have copyright laws here on designs at this point in time because it would create a monopoly and give too much power to the business holding the pattern.
– The court says since there is no statutory protection to copyright or patent patterns the court cannot give any relief to the Cheney Brothers, therefore there id no remedy and the design can be copied.
Virtual Works Inc. v. Volkswagen- this is the case where Virtual Works bought the domain name “VW.net” in 1996, they admitted that they were aware that consumers may be confused and think that VW.net was affiliated with Volkswagen, but hey still wanted to use the name in hopes that they would be able to sell it to Volkswagen for a large sum of money.
– The court said that a company may not buy a domain nam
bandoned property.
– If you drop something and don’t know where you dropped it, this is considered lost property
– If you put something down and leave it somewhere, it is considered mislaid property. (Because you might remember where you left it and come back to reclaim it.
Bridges v. Hawkesworth (precedent in Hannah v. Peel)-This is a case where plaintiff found money on the floor of a shop. He gave the money to the shop owner (D) for holding in case the true owner came to claim it. The true owner never came to claim the money; the court of appeals said the money would have never been known to the defendant if it wasn’t for the plaintiff. This court followed the Armory case, in saying that the plaintiff gets the money (as the finder) against all but the true owner. The court said the place where the finding happens is irrelevant (ex. if the finding happens in private or public).
South Staffordshire v. Sharman (case named in Hannah v. Peel) – Defendant Sharman was cleaning out pool and found two rings on the bottom in the mud. Court says plaintiff gets the rings because they have a right to anything on there land even though they aren’t aware of it. (Here lies the distinction between this case and bridges). The possession goes to the locus in quo.
– This case says if you find something on someone else’s land, than you find it for the owner of the land.
-Rule: “the possession of the land carries with it the possession of everything which is attached to or under the land, and in absence of title elsewhere the owner of the land gets to possess the thing that is attached to or under it, regardless of whether they knew about it”
Elwes v. Brigg- This is the case where land had been demised to a gas company for 99 years with a reservation to the lessor of all mines and minerals. A historic boat was embedded in the soil and discovered by the lessees when they were digging a gasholder. The court said that the boat whether it was regarded as a mineral or as a part of the soil in which it was embedded when discovered, did not pass to the lessees, but was the property of the lessor even though he was not aware of the boat when he granted the lease.
– Because the OO could no be found because the boat was obviously lost or abandoned years ago, the possessor of the land is entitled to the boat against all but the OO, and since the OO cannot be find than the lessor gets the boat.
The court also says that if the boat was left by the previous owners, than it would
