Property Case Rule Chart

Pierson v. Post

On public land, Post injured the fox, but Pierson fired the fatal blow. Courts rewarded Pierson. Mere pursuit is not enough, courts reward those who succeed in firing the fatal blow.

Ghen v. Rich

Exception to the ROC: Custom - industry custom to kill whales marked with harpoon, person who killed gets the whale.

Keeble v. Hickeringle

Rule of Capture does not apply when frustrated by spoiler of malicious interference like messing with duck decoy in pond. (Keeble owned decoy pond, Hickeringle maliciously interfered)

Popov v. Hayashi

No rule of capture because the ball escaped; BUT P was interfered by malicious interlopers. Because hayashi was innocent bystander, split proceeds in equity.

Armory v. Delamirie

chimney sweeper who found gem and brings to jeweler, jeweler attempts to keep it. chimney sweeper wins as prior possessor. (prevent might over right; honor reasonable expectations)

Hannah v. Peel

Outlier case where finder, Hannah, was rewarded for meritorious conduct, but typically homeowner is constructive possessor of all within the home (including brooch)

McAvoy v. Medina

barbershop quasi-public place, so wallet goes to the owner not the finder (wallet was mislaid)

Van Valkenburgh v. Lutz

because of statute’s and Lutz’s admission at trial, buyer of land defeated adverse possession claim

Manillo v. Gorski

even though possessor accidentally built on his neighbor’s land, court adopts connecticut approach where judge adverse possession elements objectively. State of mind is irrelevant.

Howard v. Kunto

Even though the deed was faulty, possessor was allowed to tack time because he bought from previous possessor and he constructively possessed all land conveyed on the faulty deed.

O’Keefe v. Snyder

O’Keefe’s paintings were stolen and then sold to another buyer. O’Keefe did not diligently try to get the paintings back but sued for replevin (recovery of personal property). Parties settled and split the difference.

Newman v. Bost

court says because of physical delivery requirement, lover only gets. afew items. constructive delivery of items man pointed at in the room. No life insurance policy

Gruen v. Gruen

although no delivery, in fairness court says father’s letter created future interest in painting constituting symbolic interest in painting constituting symbolic delivery creating a life estate where son is remainder.