Property

Pierson v. Post (1805) Facts

Post was hunting a fox. Pierson saw, captured and killed the same fox. Post sued for trespass arguing that he had legal possession fo the fox

Pierson v. Post (1805) Holding

• Law: foxes are a type of animal that can be acquired by occupancy only

• Reasoning: occupancy requires actual corporal possession; just pursuit → no legal right

  • Mortal wounding is enough to get occupancy b/c you’ve brought it under control and intend to use it

Ghen v. Rich (District Ct., Mass, 1881) Facts

Ghen was a whaler who harpooned a whale, which later washed ashore and was taken by Rich. Ghen sued for the whale, asserting he had legal possession by virtue of the harpooning.

Ghen v. Rich (District Ct., Mass, 1881)

Holding: The court ruled that the original possessor of the whale, Ghen, had a superior claim to the whale because he had followed customary practices in whaling, which established his right to possession; Contrary to Pearson - where pursuit was insufficient to constitute posession

Johnson v. M’Intosh (SC, 1823) Facts

In this case, Johnson claimed land that had been sold to him by Native Americans, while M'Intosh held a conflicting claim based on a later grant from the U.S. government. The court had to determine the validity of land titles derived from Native American purchases.

Johnson v. M’Intosh (SC, 1823) Holding

US gov has ultimate title; land grants to private individuals are invalid if they conflict with government titles. NA have right to occupancy, but not ownership

Keeble v. Hickeringill (Queens Bench, 1707) Facts

Keeble owned land where he set up a decoy pond which he used to lure wildfowl which he used for business. Hickeringill had his own decoy pond and he fired off guns 3 times near Keeble’s pond to scare away the wildfowl that were there (not on his land)

Keeble v. Hickeringill (Queens Bench, 1707) Holding

Keeble can bring action not for the loss of fowl, but for the disturbance to his property; cannot interfere with another's legal business; ratione soli doctrine - once wild animals on private land → “constructive possession” - don’t actually possess ducks, but have legal possession that can give rise to a property right

Popov v. Hayashi (Cali Trial Ct.,  2002) Facts

Barry Bonds was set to break the home run record. The ball entered Popov’s glove but he was tackled by others. The ball rolled toward Hayashi and he picked it up. Popov sued for the ball

Popov v. Hayashi (Cali Trial Ct.,  2002) Holding

Hayashi & Popov have equal undivided interest in ball b/c Hayashi not involved in illegal conduct; Where an actor undertakes significant but incomplete steps to achieve possession of a piece of abandoned personal property and the effort is interrupted by the unlawful acts of others, the actor has a legally cognizable pre-possessory interest in the property

2 kinds of property

• Real property: land, buildings, fixed infrastructure

• Personal property/chattel: object, but not real estate; not fixed to land;

Mislaid

• finder has no property rights to mislaid object; if true owner shows up it’s  their’s but it belongs to the owner of the land if they don’t show up

Lost

• finder has rights against everyone but the original true owner; employment relationship complicates this

Abandoned

• finder can keep it; true owner can no longer assert a right; ex. Boat in Elwis; time is not necessarily dispositive for abandonment

Armory v. Delamirie (King’s Bench, 1722) (Loss) Facts

• boy finds jewel and takes it to shop for evaluation. The boy wanted the jewel back but apprentice refused to give it to him and would offer only money instead. Boy sues seeking replevin

Armory v. Delamirie (King’s Bench, 1722) (Loss) Holding

• A finder of some object is entitled to possession of it against anyone except the original owner (many cts follow this rule); In this case → Boy doesn’t have an absolute property right to jewel, but he has such a property as will enable him to keep it against all but the rightful owner

“in trover” v. “replevin”

• “In trover” - suing for money damages, contrast with “replevin” - want actual property/object back

Hannah v. Peel (King’s bench 1945) (Loss) Facts

• Peel owned a house but never lived in it. Hannah lived in the house when it was requisitioned for soldiers. He found a brooch in the windowsill while living there and gave it over to police. After 2 years, no owner was found → police gave brooch to Peel who sold it for 66 pounds, and was resold for 88 pounds later. Hannah refused to accept an award and sued for the full amount of the brooch

Hannah v. Peel (King’s bench 1945) (Loss) Holding

• Brooch is not attached to the land or under the land & no employment relationship → Hannah gets it; Armory rule stills applies → would probably have to give it back if the real owner turned up 

Hannah v. Peel (King’s bench 1945) cases in Reasoning

• Bridges v. Hawkesworth - guy finds banknotes in store, gives it to store, owner doesn’t claim it for 3 years; In Armory - finder has right, except if true owner claims it → holds here → shopowner never took possession of notes before it was presented to plaintiff → finders keepers

• South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman - guy finds rings in pool while he was cleaning it. He was hired to do so. He doesn’t tell company; Held: land carries with it possession of everything which may be on or in that land → this judge doesn’t necessarily agree; focus on relationship between plaintiff & defendant - employer and employee in this case → employer gets rings because they hired employee to be there; employee/employer relationship is why you get a different result from Bridges - if there had been an employee relationship in Bridges → maybe different results

• Elwes v. Brigg Gas Co. - gas company finds ancient boat while excavating land; boat was found to be property of owner of land whether it’s considered part of land or a chattel;

• *Overall takeaways from precedent: 1. Man possess everything which is attached to or under his land; 2. Man does not necessarily possess a thing which is lying unattached on the surface of his land even though the thing is not possessed by someone else

McAvocy v. Medina (Mass. 1866) (Mislaid) Facts

• McAvoy found a pocketbook on a table while getting a haircut at Medina’s shop. He left it with Medina so that he could try to find the owner, but he demanded the money in the pocketbook after an owner wasn’t found

McAvocy v. Medina (Mass. 1866) (Mislaid) Holding

• McAvoy doesn’t have a right to the pocketbook because it was misplaced not lost

Lost v. Mislaid

• “Lost v. mislaid property”: pocketbook was voluntarily placed on a table in the shop, which is different than what happened in Bridges because the bank notes were found on the floor and were therefore not placed there voluntarily by the owner; *intention is key distinction

  • A finder of a mislaid object acquires no property right to it; rather the shop owner gains the ownership