First Possession Cases

Question 1

Pierson v. Post

Answer 1

Pierson - captured fox
Post - hunting fox with hounds

Rule: Pursuit alone vests no property or right in the huntsman - animal must be taken

Possessor without capture:
Pursuit + intent to possess + not abandoning the chase+
- Depriving of natural liberty
- mortal wounding
- rendering escape impossible
- greatly maming
- using nets and toils

Policy: Sake of certainty and preserving peace and order in society and well as preventing quarrels

Livingston: This should have been looked at as a sporting dispute. In a sporting contest, if you get within reach with an intent to capture and have more than a reasonable prospect of first possession, then you have possession rights

Question 2

Pierson v. Post - Livingston’s dissent

Answer 2

This should have been looked at as a sporting dispute - not a decision for the courts to make

Test: If you discover farae naturae in a sporting contest and you get within reach with intent to capture and had more than a reasonable prospect of first possession - then you are first possessor

Question 3

Ghen v. Rich

Answer 3

Ghen - killer
Rich - stole whale

Rule: pursuer that mortally wounds and abandons the chase has property rights where there is a custom, etc.

• Custom
• marks of appropriation so that person who finds it knows its yours
• nature of the whale is that it sinks when killed - so impossible to have first possession
• fearful that the whaling industry would die

Question 4

Keeble v. Hickeringill

Answer 4

Keeble - owner of pond
Hickeringill - shooter

Rule: Malicious interference with trade

1. Trade - business
2. Malice - intent to harm
3. Interference - other person is denied something

Schoolmaster case- schoolmaster set up school to lure students away - this is ok. Would not be ok if schoolmaster stood in the way of other school to prevent them from going there.