Fun with property
Friday, February 25, 2005
In property class today we discussed two cases, and Mackenzie provided me with yet one more.
The first (in class) was Pierson v. Post, 3 Caines 175, 2 Am. Dec. 264 (1805). Deals with the ownership of a fox when pursued by hunters. The apparent rule, continuing from the code of Justinian is that "pursuit alone vests no property right in the huntsman; and that even pursuit, accompanied by wounding, is equally ineffectual for that purpose, unless the animal be actually taken." It matters not that one hunter has kept a pack of hounds or that such gentleman "at the sound of the horn, and at peep of day, would mount his steed and for hours together... Pursue the windings of this wily quadraped, if, just as night came on and his stratagems and strength were nearly exhausted, a saucy intruder who had not shared in the honors or labours of the chase, were permitted to come in at the death, and bear away in triumph the object of pursuit."
The second case (in class), Ganter v Kapiloff, 69 Md.App. 97, 516 A.2d 611 (1986), put rest to the adage of "Finders Keepers." By stating that a finding is good for possession unless the true owner wants the thing you found, then it is still his. The case hinged on the ownership of a pair of stamps valued at over $100,000.
Finally Mackenzie delivered me one more case during this fray. Go ahead and read the news article, it is short.
I keep telling you, the law can be fun!
posted by ZEUS @ 9:40 AM,
