DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Kanagaroo Kort
  HTML https://kangarookort.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Property
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 6--------------------------------------------------
       Pierson v. Post
       By: kangaroo Date: January 26, 2011, 6:04 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FACTS: D was pursuing a fox with his dogs through
       uninhabited/unowned lands.  P saw this and prevented D’s
       catching of the animal by killing it and carrying it off
       Hunter (Post) v. Killer (Pierson): Replev’n (wants the fox
       back) & Conversion (money value of the fox)
       PROCEDURE: SJ/P (now the defendant in this case), rev’d
       ISSUE: Did Post (D) acquire a right to the fox by pursuing it
       with this hounds, thus making Pierson’s (P) actions unlawful?
       -
       chaser/pursuer or the killer?
       -
       right to property (what constitutes dominion)?
       RULE:
       (1)
       lib.3, c.2, p.175, adopt the principle, that pursuit alone vests
       no property or right in the huntsman; and that even pursuit,
       accompanied with wounding, is equally ineffectual for that
       purpose, unless the animal be actually taken (18).
       (2)
       beasts ferae naturae, to be the actual corporal possession of
       them (18)
       (3)
       ownership interest in it
       ANALYSIS: For the sake of certainty and preserving peace and
       order in society, the court confines the possession of beasts
       ferae naturae according to the limits prescribed by Justinian
       and Puffendorf.  The killer is the first occupier of the ferae
       naturae, his possession leads to his ownership.
       -
       the fox could be wounded by a number of people (court wants the
       law to be cut and dry)
       -
       ferae naturae on someone’s personal property (ratione soli—On
       one’s own property, the owner has the exclusive right to pursue
       farae naturea on his land—land concept), not uninhabited land
       CONSLUSION: Dominion is necessary to reduce the status of the
       farea naturae to property.  The killer is ruled to be the first
       occupier of the ferae naturae.  His possession leads to his
       ownership and therefore has property rights and has a better
       title than the pursuer.
       DISSENT:  (Livingston) The decision should have taken into
       consideration the view that there should be great encouragement
       to eradicate the fox because of its cunning and ruthless ways.
       Also, the Justinian code was compiled so long ago that it is
       thought to be outdated.  It is argued that property in animals
       ferae naturae may be acquired without bodily touch or
       manipulation, provided that pursuer was within reach, or have a
       reasonable prospect of taking what he has thus discovered with
       an intention of converting to his own use (20). Making fun of
       the majority’s opinion.
       *****************************************************