Possession (First, Rights, and Sequential) Flashcards
1
Q
First Possession
A
Establishing a new root of title by being the first to possess something that is unclaimed by anyone else
2
Q
Original Acquisition
A
Method of establishing ownership other than voluntary conveyance from previous owner
Includes first possession, creation, and adverse possession
3
Q
How does one establish first possession?
A
Intent to control + act of control
4
Q
Pierson v. Post - Facts
A
Post is hunting w/ his dogs on an uninhabited + unpossessed beach -> he finds a fox and hunts it
Pierson seems him hunting the fox, but kills it and carries it off anyway
5
Q
Pierson v. Post - Core Issue
A
Was the mere act of hunting the fox enough to establish first possession?
6
Q
Pierson v. Post - Majority Opinion
A
- Says need “certain control” in order to establish possession
- Cites various sources (some say corporal possession necessary, some say wounding/ensnaring sufficient) but all agree mere pursuit not enough
7
Q
Pierson v. Post - Dissent
A
- Argues for “reasonable prospect” standard - says Post should have won b/c he had a reasonable prospect of taking the fox + converting to own use
- Also argues should consult hunters on their customs
8
Q
Negative Side of Custom
A
Don’t want to load the law up with too much custom because there may be people who genuinely don’t know the custom
9
Q
Keeble v. Hickeringill - Facts
A
- Keeble has a decoy pond on his land, which he uses to attract wildfowl -> he then takes the wildfowl as a business
- Hickeringill knowingly + intentionally fires gun into air near the decoy pond on three separate days to scare away the birds - his plan works and the birds abandon the pond (he is trying to do this b/c he’s annoyed Keeble’s decoy pond is going to take ducks from his own nearby decoy pond)
10
Q
Keeble v. Hickeringill - Decision
A
- Court finds in favor of Keeble - says Hickeringill interfered w/ his livelihood
11
Q
Keeble v. Hickeringill - Complexity
A
- Keeble did not have certain control of the ducks, and the court acknowledged that Keeble didn’t actually possess the ducks
- Prof Smith says now more likely to be treated as a nuisance, or possibly unfair competition/interference
12
Q
Ratione soli
A
- “according to the soil” - Latin phrase conveying the legal justification for assigning property rights to landowners over resources found on their land
13
Q
Tragedy of the Commons
A
- resource depletion issue that arises out of first-in-time rights to an asset -> can lead to racing + waste
- if you don’t use it, someone else will - turns into a race to use the common property
14
Q
Open-Access Commons
A
- open-access commons - access to the common resource is open to all -> means each individual has incentive to use the resource first -> can exploit the resource to ruin (Tragedy of the Commons)
15
Q
Limited-Access Commons
A
- set of individuals w/ access to the common resource is limited-> less likely to have Tragedy of the Commons, more likely to have group controlling own behavior in the interest of resource preservation
16
Q
Popov v. Hayashi
A
- case with the Barry Bonds home-run baseball
- court ruled Popov had exclusive pre-possessory interest in being allowed to catch the ball w/o interference, but Hayashi was 1st to unambiguously establish possession -> said they both had superior claims against rest of world but equal to each other -> sell ball and split proceeds
17
Q
Haslem v. Lockwood - Facts
A
- Haslem hired people to gather manure off the public highway into heaps + left the heaps overnight
- Lockwood found the heaps the next morning, tried and failed to figure out who they belonged to, then carried them away (conversion)
18
Q
Haslem v. Lockwood - Reasoning
A
- Court says Haslem’s labor and improvement establishes possession of the manure piles
- Trover - requires that the plaintiff have possession or the immediate right to possession (Haslem is not in possession, but maintains the right to possess)
- Court also looks to the seaweed statute for comparison (Haslem didn’t leave the manure long enough)
19
Q
Haslem v. Lockwood - Core Principle
A
Not necessarily possession, so much as rights to possess (once you have first possession, you are sort of on a glide path in rights to possess - you have those rights until you do something to give them up)
20
Q
Law of Finders
A
- exemplified by Armory v. Delamirie
- finder has title good against all but the true owner
21
Q
Armory v. Delamirie - Facts
A
- Chimney sweeper’s boy found a ring + took it to Delamirie’s shop (silversmith)
- Apprentice took out stones + showed to master, who offered to buy them for a trivial sum
- Chimney sweeper asks for the ring back instead, but gets it w/o the stones
22
Q
Armory v. Delamirie - Decision
A
- Chimney sweeper’s boy wins in action on trover (damages for conversion of personal property)
- Finder has title good against all but true owner
- Court chose to measure damages based on the finest jewel that could fit in the socket, unless the converter could prove otherwise
23
Q
Relativity of Title
A
- Concept of hierarchy of ownership - owner, then bailee, then finder, then converter
24
Q
Jus Tertii Defense
A
- defendant argues plaintiff doesn’t have good title b/c a third-party has better title
- this is not a valid defense - litigation focuses only on the two people involved, can’t win just by saying someone else has better title
25
Finders
- Usually considered similar to a bailee for the true owner
26
Categories of Property
- abandoned
- lost
- mislaid
- treasure trove
27
What should finders get?
- not co-ownership - conflict and complexity
- finders fees might be beneficial (in Japan, finders get rewards - lost items tend to be returned to true owners)
- quantum-meruit type recovery - idea that finders should receive payment for value of services in finding and restoring object to true owner
28
Law of Salvage
- basically deals w/ shipwrecks - ownership to first possessor only when property abandoned
- otherwise, successful salvor has claim to generous percentage of value of vessel + cargo, but no ownership
29
Law of Treasure Trove
- applies to valuables, especially old currency + historically significant items, in sunken vessels
30
Shipwrecks and Possession
- to maintain possession over a wreck, one needs to provide notice + prove diligence in acting to achieve full dominion + control over a resource
31
Mislaid Property
- property intentionally placed where it is found but forgotten by the owner (meant to put it somewhere, but forgot)
- goes to locus owner instead of finder - theoretically will facilitate return to true owner
32
Clark v. Maloney - Facts
- Clark found logs floating after a storm and tied them up
| - Maloney later "found" them floating in a creek
33
Clark v. Maloney - Decision + Reasoning
- F1 beats F2 (otherwise, you'd have a lot of converters claiming to be finders)
- Rejection of jus tertii defense
34
Anderson v. Gouldberg - Holding
- both converters - first converter beats the second one
35
Anderson v. Gouldberg - Reasoning
- theoretically, if C2 were to beat C1, might provide less incentive to thievery (b/c shows court won't protect ill-gotten property)
- BUT generally, even wrongful possession is protected as possession against converters (no court has ever decided C1 vs. F2 though)
36
Why protect earlier possession?
- protecting peace and order (less need for self-help)
- protecting possession is often a cheap and effective way of establishing and protecting ownership (don't need to carry around receipts + docs)
- facilitates bailments
- reward to finders
- keeping of property closer in chain to owner
