Property
8/19/03
PIERSON v. POST (discourteous but no legal remedy): A hunter who actually kills or captures a wild animal, and immediately takes possession of it, acquires title. Suggests that mortal wounding of an animal by one not abandoning pursuit may constitute capture. .
Post was chasing a fox on public land with dogs, before he could catch it Pierson intercepted and shot the fox and took it. Post sued Pierson and won, Pierson appealed and the decision was reversed. Post appealed to the supreme court which held for Pierson and said that however discourteous his acts may be his act was not a injury or damage for which a legal remedy could be applied. Mere pursuit did not give Plaintiff a legal right to the fox.
Dissenting; a pursuit such as this that would have ended in possession confers such a right to the object of it, as to make any one a wrongdoer, who shall interfere and shoulder the spoil.
Rule: property in wild animals is only acquired by occupancy, and pursuit alone doesn’t constitute occupancy or vest any right in the pursuer.
GHEN v. RICH
Ghen shot and killed a whale, trade usage is such that the fisherman leaves the whale and when it surfaces a few days later whoever finds it lets them know and receives a small fee. Rich found the whale and auctioned it for his own profit. Held; for Ghen, he had property in the whale.. if a fisherman does all that is possible to do to make the animal his own, that would seem to be sufficient
Rule: when all that is practicable in order to secure a wild animal is done, it becomes the property of the securer who has thus exercised sufficient personal control over the wild animal.
Questions:
Discuss how, if at all, the outcome would change in the following situations:
The chase occurred on Post’s property;
i. Post would be entitled to the fox ratione soli [on account of the soil]. His position for ownership is strengthened because he owns the soil
The chase occurred on Pierson’s property;
i. Pierson would be entitled to the fox by ratione soli, he would still win, rationale would be different, Post would be trespassing.
The animal was a rare squirrel;
i. ? maybe protected, still ferae naturae, not a noxious animal so maybe court would look at different
Post shot the fox, and before he could grab it Pierson took it;
i. Mortal wounding may be deemed as possession
Smith trained the fox which was on its way back to his property when Post started chasing it;
i. Domesticated animals don’t fall under the rule of ferae naturae [wild by nature, not tame], so Smith would be the true owner. Rule of capture doesn’t apply. But; outcome between pierson and post probably won’t change.
In what other context is the “rule of capture” used to decide disputes in American law? Who did better job of reasoning by analogy, KY court or Hamidid (CA Supr) court?
Are the substance and re
nt)
Borrower’s bailment solely for bailee’s benefit (std of slightly negligent)
Mutually beneficial bailment (std is negligence)
Borrower: liable if merely negligent
Something may later by a mutually beneficial bailment, even though is doesn’t seem like it at first, I.E. if you lend your neighbor your lawnmower, maybe he will lend you a saw later [kind of owes you a favor].
So can turn many situations into mutually beneficial bailments
Bailor gives, donor gives
Bailee receives, donee receives ultimately
Bailment can occur at the same time as gift
Gratuitous Bailee not agent: After delivery to Alcaraze, Appellants 1) retained title to the funds 2) had the right to assert title against any person to whom the funds were transferred and 3) had the right to terminate the bailment. Appellants 1) could have reclaimed their property and terminated their bailment at any time 2) as bailors, never lost their title interest in the property that was entrusted to Alcaraz 3) Alcaraz, as bailee, was acting on behalf of donors, not on behalf of donees. Therefore, under CA law, the delivery of gift to Alcaraz is not sufficient to constitute delivery to donees.
AUTOCEPHALOUS G-O Church v. GOLDBERG
Mosaics were stolen then sold to D,
The owner exercised due diligence
Applying Indiana law