Pierson v. Post: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|date=1805 | |date=1805 | ||
|subject=Property | |subject=Property | ||
|facts=* Mr. Post = an enthusiastic fox hunter | |facts=*Mr. Post = an enthusiastic fox hunter | ||
* Mr. Pierson = killer of the fox that Mr. Post was hunting | *Mr. Pierson = killer of the fox that Mr. Post was hunting | ||
* Post claimed ownership of the dead fox in | *Post claimed ownership of the dead fox in December 1802 in the state of New York | ||
* Pierson refused to hand over the dead fox | *Pierson refused to hand over the dead fox | ||
* | * | ||
|procedural_history=Post (regular fox hunter) sued Pierson for trespass. | |procedural_history=Post (regular fox hunter) sued Pierson for trespass. | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
* Who owns a dead animal? | * Who owns a dead animal? | ||
|holding=Judge Daniel Tompkins (the future [https://uspresidentialhistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Daniel-Tompkins1.15.22.pdf VP of the United States]): Pierson acquired ownership of the fox when he killed it. | |holding=Judge Daniel Tompkins (the future [https://uspresidentialhistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Daniel-Tompkins1.15.22.pdf VP of the United States]): Pierson acquired ownership of the fox when he killed it. | ||
The court ruled in favor of Pierson | |||
|judgment=Reversed | |judgment=Reversed | ||
|reasons=[[Property_Dukeminier/Outline#Acquisition_by_Capture_(13-34)]] | |||
|rule=<u>Pursuit alone is not enough to give the pursuer property rights</u> | |rule=<u>Pursuit alone is not enough to give the pursuer property rights</u> | ||
| Line 22: | Line 25: | ||
according to | according to | ||
# Daniel Tompkins | #Daniel Tompkins | ||
# '''''Fleta''''' (a British source of Common Law) | #'''''Fleta''''' (a British source of Common Law) | ||
# Justinian (Eastern Roman ruler) | #Justinian (Eastern Roman ruler) | ||
# Henry of Bracton (1210 - 1268) | #Henry of Bracton (1210 - 1268) | ||
# Samuel von Pufendorf (1632 - 1694) | #Grotius (1583 - 1645) | ||
# William Blackstone (1723 - 1780) | #Samuel von Pufendorf (1632 - 1694) | ||
#William Blackstone (1723 - 1780) | |||
|comments='''Henry Livingston''' (future SCOTUS justice 1757 - 1823) dissented: Pursuit of a wild animal is sufficient to acquire possessory rights over it. | |comments='''Henry Livingston''' (future SCOTUS justice 1757 - 1823) dissented: Pursuit of a wild animal is sufficient to acquire possessory rights over it. | ||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
Latest revision as of 21:03, April 24, 2024
| Pierson v. Post | |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
|---|---|
| Citation | 3 Cai. R. 175 |
| Date decided | 1805 |
Facts
- Mr. Post = an enthusiastic fox hunter
- Mr. Pierson = killer of the fox that Mr. Post was hunting
- Post claimed ownership of the dead fox in December 1802 in the state of New York
- Pierson refused to hand over the dead fox
Procedural History
Post (regular fox hunter) sued Pierson for trespass.
Post won in the trial court.Issues
- Can a person obtain property rights over a wild animal merely by chasing it during a hunt?
- Who owns a dead animal?
Holding
Judge Daniel Tompkins (the future VP of the United States): Pierson acquired ownership of the fox when he killed it.
The court ruled in favor of PiersonJudgment
Reversed
Reasons
Rule
Pursuit alone is not enough to give the pursuer property rights
according to
- Daniel Tompkins
- Fleta (a British source of Common Law)
- Justinian (Eastern Roman ruler)
- Henry of Bracton (1210 - 1268)
- Grotius (1583 - 1645)
- Samuel von Pufendorf (1632 - 1694)
- William Blackstone (1723 - 1780)
Comments
Henry Livingston (future SCOTUS justice 1757 - 1823) dissented: Pursuit of a wild animal is sufficient to acquire possessory rights over it.
Resources
