Property I

Pierson v. Post Supreme Court of New York, 1805; 3 Cai R. 175 2am. Dec 264 (Pg. 18) Facts: Post(P) was hunting with Ps hounds and was in pursuit of a fox on un-owned land, when Pierson(D), knowingly intervened and, killed the fox in question and took it. Procedure: The court ruled in favor of P. Following, D sued out a certiorari, citing error, that the law does not provide for relief for this particular matter. Issue: Does Ps pursuit of the fox give P ownership and the right to seek legal action against D for Ds actions? What constitutes possession of a wild animal? Plaintiff might argue: D knew full well that P was in the active pursuit and hunt of this particular wild animal, and that the act of pursuing an animal with Ps hounds gave P the right to possession over the fox. Thus, Ds act of interception and taking of the fox was an act of theft, for once the pursuit of the animal was taking place, P had rights over the animal during such time. Defendant might argue: Although P was in active pursuit of the fox, P and D were both on unoccupied land and the wild animals were under no ownership. The act of pursuit alone does not give an individual ownership over what it is pursuing. Moreover, once D killed the fox, D gained possession and ownership over the wild animal. Law: An individual gains ownership over a wild animal by: 1. Acquired physical possession 2. Fatally wounding, possession is thereby deemed, as long as the individual is still in pursuit of the maimed creature, once that pursuit is abandoned then the ownership if forfeited 3. Owning the land on which the pursued wild beast is occupying Reasoning: P (1) never had physical possession of the fox, (2) had yet to wound the creature during the pursuit, and (3) the land on which P and D were hunting was not owned. Therefore, P did not have ownership over the fox from the mere pursuit with hounds of the animal. On the other hand, D did both (2) fatally wound the fox and (1) acquire physical possession of the wild animal, and thus, did indeed have rightful ownership to the animal in question. In addition, while the court did not believe Ds actions to be just, Ds actions did not produce anything for which a legal remedy can be applied. Holding: The court ruled to reverse the judgment of the lower court. Due to the facts that they believed Ds actions did not fall into

Property I

the category of an action which a legal solution would be of use, and the mere act of pursuing a wild animal does not constitute possession, and the ruling of such threatens the conservation of harmony within society.