*** Welcome to piglix ***

Pierson v. Post

Pierson v. Post
Desportes fox.jpg
Court Supreme Court of New York
Decided 1805
Citation(s) 3 Cai. R. 175, 2 Am. Dec. 264
Case history
Prior action(s) Pierson v. Post, unreported case in the court of Queens County
Case opinions
Majority: Tompkins
Dissent: Livingston
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Daniel Tompkins
Henry Brockholst Livingston

Pierson v. Post, 3 Cai. R. 175, 2 Am. Dec. 264 (N.Y. 1805), is a Supreme Court of New York case about a disagreement over a dead fox that serves as an important cornerstone in Common Law legal education.

Lodowick Post, a fox hunter, was chasing a fox through a vacant lot when Pierson came across the fox and, knowing it was being chased by another, killed the fox and took it away. Post sued Pierson on an action for trespass on the case for damages against his possession of the fox. Post argued that he had ownership of the fox as giving chase to an animal in the course of hunting it was sufficient to establish possession. The trial court found in favor of Post. On appeal after the trial, the issue put to the Supreme Court of Judicature of New York was whether one could obtain property rights to a wild animal (Ferae naturae), in this case the fox, by pursuit.

The majority opinion was written by future Vice President of the United States Daniel Tompkins. The Court cited ancient precedent in deciding the case:

If we have recourse to the ancient writers upon general principles of law, the judgment below is obviously erroneous. Justinian's Institutes, and Fleta, adopt the principle, that 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. The same principle is recognized by Bracton.


...
Wikipedia

...