Property I Outline

Property

PERSONAL PROPERTY

Wild Animals
1. The Basic Test
a. General Rule – In order to achieve ownership of a wild animal, the animal must be captured (not necessarily actual capture)
· Mere pursuit doesn’t vest a legal property right – the question is what is enough to constitute actual possession
b. Pierson v. Post
· Facts: Post was chasing fox when Pierson shot and killed in on a wild beach
· Court looks to ancient law to ascertain property right:
§ Pursuit alone vests no property, animal must actually be captured (Justinian, Fleta, Bracton, Bynkershoek,
§ Actual capture OR mortal wound + pursuit (Puffendorf)
§ Don’t necessarily need actual capture – mortal wounding without abandonment, deprivation of natural liberty (Barbeyrac)
· Holding: in order to achieve ownership of a wild animal, the animal must be captured – mere pursuit doesn’t vest a legal property right – court never really says what is required for ownership, just gives a spectrum of control
· Dissent: citations to ancient writes not applicable, and they don’t even resolve the dispute as there are multiple rules
§ If pressed he would use Barbeyrac – he is a pro-hunter judge
§ He would have rather submitted the issue to the arbitration of sportsmen who could decide which rule to sue based on current practices/code of conduct
2. Applying Pierson
a. State of Ohio v. Shaw
· Facts: Ds took fish out of nets belonging to Ps, it was possible for the fish to escape, but this didn’t typically happen
· Rule: The proper legal standard is reasonable precautions against escape (don’t need complete actual capture)
§ Pursuer must bring fish into his power and control and so maintain his control as to show that he doesn’t intend to abandon them again – don’t need absolute security against possibility of escape
§ Control becomes a question of fact
b. Ghen v. Rich
· Facts: P killed a whale that washed up on shore 3 days later and was found by a passerby who sold the whale to the D. Custom at the time was that when someone found a whale, they would sent word to P-town and the shooter would come get it.
· Rule: Precedent accepts custom and favors the argument that custom should be favored in this case. Although particular usages of a particular port ought not to be allowed to set aside general maritime law, not the issue in this case because the custom is embraced by the entire business
· Reasoning: unless custom is sustained, this branch of industry would cease because no one would want to participate if the rights to the whales belonged to the finder rather than the shooter
· Note: if the only precedent was Pierson, the P would have lost because there is no actual capture, no deprivation of natural liberty, and there is mortal wounding but no pursuit
3. Release or Escape
a. E.A. Stephens & Co. v. Albers
· Facts: P was a trapper and trader and owned a silver fox who was held in captivity in an enclosure, fox escaped owner followed but gave up at night fall, fox trapped by someone else and sold to D
· General Rule: If at any time an animal regains their natural liberty, property instantly ceases; unless the animal has animum revertendi (an intention to return)
· P’s Argument: when an animal has animum revertendi (intention of returning) – property doesn’t instantly cease if the animal escapes
§ D Claimed that the animal wasn’t domesticated
· Court found for the P because the trapper knew or should have known that the fox was owned by someone else, because it was not native
· New Exception: A person who finds an animal who is not native to the region doesn’t have right to the animal because the finder knows, or should know that the animal was owned by someone else
§ Policy: time and money invested to bring animal to the region

Classifying Property as Personal or Real
1. “Whatever is Affixed to the Soil”
a. Goodard v. Winchell
· Facts: a meteor fell onto Ps land which was being leased, lessee had it removed and sold the meteor to the D
· Arguments:
§ D argued that meteorite was wild and that D possessed it (argument begins with the digging up of the meteorite)
§ P argued that the meteorite was realty and belonged to the P
· Rule: whatever is affixed to the soil belongs to the soil, a permanent annexation to the soil, of a thing in itself personal, make it a part of the realty.
2. The Farmland Exception and its Limits
a. Haslem v. Lockwood
· Facts: P gathered manure lying on a public highway, intending to remove it for his own use the next day when he would come back with something to carry it, before P could remove it D picked up the piles
· General Rule: Manure on a farm is part of realty because it is beneficial to the owner of the land
§ Doesn’t apply in this case because the manure was not beneficial on the highway
§ Because city had no objection to Ps taking possession of the poop, there was a sufficient right in P to the immediate possession of the property
· New Rule: if a person increases the value of something by his labor and expense, he doesn’t lose his right to it if he leaves it a reasonable time to procure the means to take it away
· Personal Property v. Real Property Argument
§ If the poop was real property, only the town could have a claim against the D
· However, unlike in the farm case, the poop on the road had no value.

Acquiring Abandoned Property
1. Eads v. Brazelton
o Facts: P ascertained location of boat that had been abandoned by the owners, arrived at wreck but had to leave to attend to business, while P was gone D rose ship and recovered lead, P had marked trees indicating location of the ship
o Arguments:
· P – Haslem argument – P took effort in locating the ship and had to leave in order to get proper equipment to raise the ship
· D – not a reasonable amount of time for P to wait to return
o D wins: reconciled with Haslem because there are different societal objectives – in this case the societal objective was the actual recovery of the cargo (rather than cleaning the highway) and we want to encourage people to do this
o Rule: occupation or possession of property lost, abandoned, or without an owner must depend upon an actual taking of the property with intent to reduce it to possession. Possession need not be manual, may take such possession as the nature of the property and the situation permits

Finders’ Rights
1. Do we have a finder?
o The finder must be someone who takes possession (Eads wasn’t a finder, no act of control)
o Requires intention to control and a legally sufficient act of control
2. Does the law of finders apply?
o The law of finders requries that someone have possession first
o A previous owners stops owning something by:
· Abandonment, loss, mislaid – someone put something somewhere intentionally and accidentally left it there
3. Rights against third parties
a. Armory v. Delamirie
· Facts: Chimney sweeper found a jewel and brought it to shop to have it appraised, appraised after jewel was removed, P refused to take money, asked for jewel back, apprentice refused
· Rule: Relativity of title – a finder has a right to property against all but the rightful owner
· Explanation of this case:
§ P acquired rights in the jewel by finding it, those rights could be lost or surrendered, but just bringing the jewel to be appraised doesn’t surrender the rights
b. Clark v. Maloney
· Facts: logs were found by P in river, moored them with ropes. D then took the logs and refused to give them back alleging that he had found them adrift
· Outcome: P won because he was the first finder and had rights against the second finder, relativity of title
· Rule: loss of a chattel doesn’t change the right of property, the subsequent loss didn’t divest the special property of the P
4. Rights against the original owner
a. Ganter v. Kapiloff
· D purchased stamps for dealer, learned that they no longer had possession of the stamps via an advertisement by P, P came to own stamps because he found the stamps in a drawer of a dresser that he had purchased
· Rule: he who finds lost personal property holds it against all the world except the rightful owner – D wins
· Policy reasons for why owners rights trump those of the finder: property is designed to be used and if any loss means transfer of ownership, owner will not use property
· Circumstances when the finder’s get absolute rather than relative title to property:
§ When the property has been abandoned (intentional, voluntary, relinquishing of title) – depends on jurisdiction, passage of time isn’t always sufficient
5. Rights against the private landowner
a. Possession in the Common Law: the possession of land carries with it general, by our law, possession of everything which is attached to or under that land, and, in the absence of a better title elsewhere, the right to possess it also. It makes no difference that the possessor is not aware of the thing’s existence
b. Hannah v. Peel (note that this case doesn’t represent the law)
· Facts: P found broach in Ds house, turned it in to the police, no one ever claimed it, but the police gave it back to the landowner rather than the finder
· Holding: court found for the finder P, the government was in possession of the house, thereafter the landowner’s reasonable expectations are reduced
· Typically courts state that the landowner’s rights trump those of the finder
§ Policy behind this:
· Reasonable expectations of the landowner
· Danger that if the finder wins, it will encourage people to tresspass
6. Findings in Public Spaces
a. McAvoy v. Medina
· Facts: Pocketbook left at D’s shop and found by P, original owner never came back and D refused to give money to P
· Rule: Because it