A case brief

If anyone is has already found this site be nice. I Just learned how to do a case out of a book and i start my first classes next week.

Pierson V Post
Supreme court of New York
1805

Facts: Post was hunting a fox. Pierson saw Post chasing the fox and to prevent him from catching the fox he killed it and took it. Post was the plaintiff and not respondent and Pierson was the defendant and not the appellate. They were on unowned land/ public land.

Issue: Does pursuit and reasonable belief of the ability to capture of a ferae naturae give that person the right to ownership ferae naturae?

Rule: The only way to own an animal ferae naturae as property is to acquire by occupancy. Pursuit alone vests no property of right in the huntsman and that even pursuit, accompanied with wounding, is equally ineffectual for that purpose, unless the animal is actually taken. The mortal wounding of such beasts, by one not abandoning his pursuit may, with the utmost propriety, be deemed possession of him, since, thereby, the pursuer manifest an unequivocal intention of appropriating the animal to his individual use.

Application: while Post did pursue the animal first and may of eventual kill it and claim it he failed to do so because Pierson did so before him. To gain the animal ferae naturae as property one must have occupancy of it. To gain occupancy one must kill and capture it or mortal wound it and keep pursuit so that they will eventually capture it.

Conclusion: Reversed. While Pierson act towards post may be rude they do not give him any legal remedy because Pierson legally acquired the animal.

Dissenting opinion: Justice Livingston believes that the person who is in pursuit of the animal and there is a reasonable belief that he will capture gives him occupancy and the said animal much as mortal wounding it and continuing pursuit does.