Property 9/1

Pierson v. Post

Facts: During a fox hunt on public land, Lodowick Post was in hot pursuit of a fox when Jesse Pierson intervened, killed the animal, and carried it away, prompting Post to sue for ownership of the fox.

Rule: property rights over a wild animal are acquired only through actual possession, which requires killing, capturing, or mortally wounding the animal, rather than mere pursuit.

Ghen v. Rich

Facts: After a whaler named Ghen killed a finback whale that sank and washed ashore, a finder discovered the carcass and sold it at auction to Rich instead of following the local industry custom of notifying the killer, prompting Ghen to sue for the whale's value.

Rule: title to a wild animal can be acquired without physical possession if the hunter does everything possible to secure it and follows an established industry custom necessary for that business to exist.

Popov v. Hayashi

Facts: After Alex Popov made contact with Barry Bonds' record-breaking 73rd home run ball, he was immediately swarmed and knocked down by a mob of fans, causing the loose ball to roll to Patrick Hayashi, who picked it up and kept it, prompting Popov to sue for conversion.

Rule: when an actor undertakes significant steps to achieve possession of a piece of abandoned property but is interrupted by the unlawful acts of others, the actor establishes a "pre-possessory interest" that can support a claim for conversion.

BUT, the court thought both men had right to possession of the ball. (equitabl division) The court declares that both plaintiff and defendant have an equal undivided interest in the ball. Plaintiff’s cause of action for conversion is sustained only as to his equal and undivided interests. To effectuate this ruling, the ball must be sold and the proceeds divided equally between the parties.

Marsh v. Colby

Facts: After Colby caught fish from a small lake or pond located almost entirely within the boundaries of Marsh's private farm, Marsh sued him for trespass.

Rule: while a private landowner has exclusive control and fishing rights over small bodies of water on their land, an individual is legally presumed to have an implied license to fish there unless the owner explicitly provides notification to the contrary

Jacques v. Steenberg Homes

Facts: Despite being repeatedly denied permission, Steenberg Homes intentionally plowed a path through the snow-covered property of Harvey and Lois Jacque to deliver a mobile home to a neighbor, prompting the landowners to sue for intentional trespass even though no actual physical damage was caused to their land.

Rule: when a trespass to land is intentional, punitive damages may be awarded even in the absence of compensatory damages, because the actual harm is the violation of the landowner's constitutional right to exclude others.

Briggs v. Southwestern Energy

Facts: The Briggs family sued Southwestern Energy Production Company for trespass and conversion, alleging that the company used hydraulic fracturing (fracking) on an adjacent leased tract to drain and extract natural gas from beneath the family's private land

Rule: the rule of capture applies to hydraulic fracturing, meaning a developer is not liable for draining oil or gas from beneath a neighbor's land unless the plaintiff can prove there was an actual, physical subsurface intrusion across property lines.

Adirondack League Club v. Sierra Club

Facts: After a group of paddlers organized by the Sierra Club traveled down a twelve-mile stretch of the Moose River running through the private property of the Adirondack League Club, the private club sued them for trespass

Rule: a waterway is considered "navigable-in-fact," and thus open to public recreational use, if it has the capacity to float commercial watercraft or recreational watercraft like canoes and kayaks, even if it passes through private property.

The Rule of Capture

Provides that the first individual to actually possess property- meaning the first to kill, trap, or otherwise enclose an animal, or to extract and store oil and gas from underground- owns it.

Ratione Soli

Awards entitlement to the landowner when a hunter kills or captures a wild animal on land that belongs to someone else without permission, under the theory that the landowner had prior possession of the animal.

Exception to Rule of Capture

In order to encourage investment in domesticated animals, the law recognizes an exception to the rule of capture. When a domesticated animal escapes, the owner retains his property rights in the animal. Thus, the law makes a distinction between animals with animus revertendi (those with a “habit of returning”) and ferae naturae (wild animals). Jim still owns the sheep (domesticated animals) even though he lost certain control of them. However, if Jim captured a wild cougar and it later escaped onto Logan’s land, Logan would have better property rights under the rule of capture.