Class 1 HYPOTHETICALS Flashcards
What if the U.S. government grants a piece of land to Bob on May 1 and then grants that same piece of land to Sally on June 1.
Thereafter, on July 1, at exactly the same time, Bob sells that land to Carl, and Sally sells that land to Nancy. Who owns the property?
Carl because bob was the prior owner after tracing the chain of title.
Why?
Because you cannot give what you do not own (the nemo dat principle)
Doctrine of Acession
Comes into play when one person adds to the property of another through labour or labour and material. 3 factors
1) The mental state of the improver. Good faith is necessary for accession.
2) The degree of transformation of property
- Major transformation weighs in favor of compensating improver.
- Little transformation weighs in favor of giving full property to original owner.
3) The relative value contributed by improver
If the final product is of much greater value than the raw materials, weighs in favor of compensating improver.
Alex innocently uses a bushel of Bob’s grapes to make a batch of wine. The batch of wine sells for $2500, but the bushel of grapes is only worth $50. What result?
Alex would be awarded the final product – the wine – but Bob would be entitled to damages equal to the value of the grapes – $50 as Alex had good faith, made major changes.
Doctrine of Increase
The offspring (or increase) of the domestic/tamed animals belong to the owner of the mother. Also applies to any increase to the increase, so any offspring of the offspring.
A cow from Alex’s herd roams onto Bob’s farm, mates with Bob’s bull, and ends up returning so often to Bob’s farm (to see the bull) that the cow ends up giving birth on Bob’s farm.
Who owns the newly born calf?
Alex with the doctrine of increase.
After being returned to Alex, the newly born calf spends its life wandering back to Bob’s farm. Bob feeds the calf each day and bathes it regularly, while Alex does nothing for the calf. The grown calf (now cow) then has its own calf with one of Bob’s other bulls.
Who owns the newly born calf?
Alex does because it’s an offspring of offspring aka doctrine of increase. doesn’t matter that bob fed it.
What is constructive possession?
Having possession that is on their land even if they do not have physical possession of it.
T, a trespasser, captures a wild animal on the land of O, a landowner, and carries it off to T’s own land where she confines it in a cage. Then, T2, another trespasser, trespasses on T’s land and takes away the animal.
In a suit by T against T2, who owns the animal?
When T2 trespasses on T’s land and carries off the animal, T does have “title” (the better right) as against T2.
T’s title is relatively better than T2’s, even though it is relatively worse than O’s.
(this is Thea of relativity of title)
F has established a herd of deer that she keeps for pleasure and an occasional roast of venison. The deer roam about on open government property during the day but return to F’s farm at night.
H, a hunter, licensed to hunt deer on the gov’t land, shoots one of F’s deer during hunting season one day. F sues H for return of the deer carcass.
Who prevails?
F wins under the exception to the capture doctrine called animus revertendi.
The doctrine of Animus Revertendi says that any animal that strays out of the owners property into state or common property, cannot be captured/killed without compensation to the true owner.
Normally, a person who captures a wild animal loses the ownership right if the wild animal escapes.
But if the animal is sufficiently domesticated to return frequently to the original capturer, then it still is owned by the capturer.
F has established a herd of deer that she keeps for pleasure and an occasional roast of venison. The deer roam about on open government property during the day but return to F’s farm at night.
H, a hunter, licensed to hunt deer on the gov’t land, shoots one of F’s deer during hunting season one day. F sues H for return of the deer carcass.
Who prevails?
F wins under the exception to the capture doctrine called animus revertendi.
Normally, a person who captures a wild animal loses the ownership right if the wild animal escapes.
But if the animal is sufficiently domesticated to return frequently to the original capturer, then it still is owned by the capturer.
Pierson v. Post
Whoever mortally wounds and continuous pursuit would be owner.
exception if you are a trespasser thats a problem.
or animism revertendi– if domesticated enough then owned by capturer.
Popov v Hayashi
It hit Popovs glove and he claimed possession.
Hayashi picked it up off floor and claimed possession.
they said Popov did have possession, and so did hayashi so they went 50/50
What is a finder?
Someone who takes control of the property AND
Has intent to matin possession of the property.
Main Rule is they have title against the world except the true owner or prior possessors.
Alex finds a watch in an old storage locker – Alex bought the storage locker at auction. Alex later loses the watch, which is found by Bob. Alex sues Bob for return of the watch.
Who wins?
Law of Finders. Alex wins as he was the prior finder.
regardless how many finders there are.
Bailments are what? What does it require?
A bailment is the rightful possession of goods who is not the owner.
like a coat check they are bailees or car with valet parking.
It requires delivery of possession (actual delivery, constructive delivery, symbolic delivery)
