DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Kanagaroo Kort
  HTML https://kangarookort.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Property
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 7--------------------------------------------------
       Glen v. Rich
       By: kangaroo Date: January 26, 2011, 6:05 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FACTS: P shot and killed the whale in question with a bomb-lace
       on April 9, 1880.  The whale instantly sunk to the bottom and
       was found stranded on the beach in Brewster by D on the morning
       of the 12th.  It was the custom of the time that when someone
       found the  dead whale, he would go find the person who killed it
       and receive a finder’s fee.  Upon finding the whale, D
       advertised that it was for sale by auction and sold it to the
       respondent.  P heard of the whale’s findings and went to claim
       it only to find that it had been sold.  Whaling requires skill,
       investment, and risk. There is a suit by the plaintiff against
       the defendant for conversion (suing for the value of the what at
       the time and place that it was taken)
       PROCEDURE: SJ/P
       ISSUE: Was the whale in fact the property of P therefore making
       it unlawful for D to claim it and sell it at auction? DO
       property rights exist to the first person who kills the whale in
       accordance to the local custom or to the person who finds the
       whale?
       RULE:
       (1)
       community, thus common law should reach the same result
       (2)
       killed, and is anchored and left with marks of property of the
       original captors; and if it is afterwards found, still anchored,
       by another ship, there is no usage or principle of law by which
       the property of the original captors is diverted, even though he
       whale may have dragged from its anchorage. (custom is NOT
       applicable b/c of a divesting property right)
       (3)
       had killed and taken actual possession of the whale, ownership
       vested in them. (custom is NOT applicable b/c they were trying
       to divest (TAKING A PROPERTY RIGHT AWAY) property rights)
       (4)
       whalemen in the Arctic seas, that the iron holds the whale, was
       reasonable and valid. (custom is applicable b/c that custom is
       vesting a property right in an unowned object and that is ok)
       ANALYSIS: That the rule works well in practice is shown by the
       extent of the industry which has grown up under it, and the
       general acquiescence of a whole community interested to dispute
       it.  It is by no means clear that without regard to usage the
       common law would not reach the same result.  There is no unjust
       enrichment problem because there was a finder’s fee under the
       custom.
       CONSLUSION: Use of custom here is an adequate rule, therefore
       the plaintiff’s property rights are recognized and he is
       entitled to damages for $71.05
       *****************************************************