df2259d2-a2a9-4a20-947d-92e08d78e5c9.doc
19
Pierson v. Post, Supreme Court of NY, 1805 Was pursuit sufficient for occupancy or possession? Issue Reasoning
Pursuit alone did not give Post the legal right to the Fox. The fox became Pierson’s property when he intercepted and killed it. This holding preserves order in society: If the first seeing, starting, or pursuing such animals, without having so wounded, circumvented or ensnared the animal, so as to deprive them of their natural liberty, and subject them to the control of their pursuer, should afford the basis of actions against others for intercepting and killing them, it would prove a fertile course of quarrels and litigation.
Rule
Mere pursuit is not sufficient to vest property. Justinian: pursuit + wounding = not sufficient Puffendorf: actual possession required Barbeyrac: Possession = mortal wounding by someone still in pursuit, bodily seizure; killing.
Facts
Post was chasing a fox when Pierson killed him and took him away.
Dissent
Pursuit should be sufficient. Hunters should be encouraged to chase and kill foxes. Hunter shouldn’t have to chase a fox all day long to have it snatched from him.
Held Procedure P argues D argues
Pierson’s act was uncourteous and unkind but he gets to keep the fox. Court ruled in favor of Post. Pierson appealed.