Pierson v. Post; Acquisition by Capture p. 19; SP of NY 1805 Facts: Post was pursuing a fox with his hunting dogs on a public beach (wasteland). D knew P was pursuing the fox but went ahead and killed it and carried it off.
Result below: Judgment overturned and final verdict for D. General Rules: Property of animals “ferae naturae” is acquired by occupancy only. Occupancy is determined when a pursuer manifests an unequivocal intention of appropriating the animal to his individual use, and has deprived him of his natural liberty, and brought him within his certain control. Issues: What acts amount to occupancy, applied to acquiring right to wild animals? Yes for P No, Verdict reversed “For the sake of certainty, and preserving peace and order in society,” possession will be confined to the prescribed limits of the authors cited above. Jusinian and Bracton – pursuit alone vests no property or right in the huntsman; and that even pursuit, accompanied with wounding, is equally ineffectual for that purpose, unless the animal be actually taken. Puffendorf – a wild beast mortally wounded, or greatly maimed, cannot be fairly intercepted by another, whilst the pursuit of the person inflicting the wound continues. Barbeyrac – same as Puffendorf; “the mortal wounding of such beasts, by one not abandoning his pursuit, may, with the utmost propriety, be deemed possession of him” Policy: Majority: For the sake of certainty and preserving peace in society. Dissent: For the sake of preserving hunting of noxious beasts and maximize killing of foxes. If the rule is that someone can step in and kill a fox after someone else has been hunting for a long time, then people will stop hunting foxes.
Holdings:
Reasoning:
Dissent says reasonable prospect of capture is enough. On exam say: This case boils down to who has a right to the fox which has been agreed upon by all parties that a right is acquired with occupancy. The court has
defined occupancy as having 3 elements. Post had established element 1 because of blah blah and blah, the second issue is debatable because of blah balh and blah however this issue is moot because he clearly does not satisfy the 3rd element because of blah and blah.