Ch.

1 Personal Property
1. Wild animals

Pierson v Post (NY 1805)

o Pierson intercepted when Post was pursuing the fox. Post claimed that because he pursuing the fox, it was his already. But the
court determined that you need MORE than intention, you need to deprive animal of its natural liberty. Pierson deprived the fox
of its natural liberty, so he won.
o Unless you deprive animal of its natural liberty, you have not claimed possession.
o Origin of possession: the basic nature of possession is that if you have a wild animal, it becomes owned by someone if they
deprive of its natural liberty.
o Pierson won.

State of ohio v Shaw (Ohio 1902)

o G and H owned nets, they kept them in the water to catch fishwhich the nets did.
o Before nets, the fish were ferae naturae.
o G and H (like Post) because they were trying to capture the fish (just intention)
o Shaw came along and pulled a Pierson because he took away the fish.
o G and H, original, had made reasonable precautions to prevent escape of the fish/denied them of their natural liberty. THE FISH
WERE NOT FERAE NATUREA AFTER G AND H GOT FISH IN THE NETS.
o G and H won.

Ghen v Rich (Mass 1881)

o Whaling case.
o Ghen and crew shot whale with their special, individual mark. Left it, it sank, it washed up on the shore (that was traditional
procedure, followed by ALL people who whale. Custom )
o The whale was found on beach by 3rd party, who auctioned it off to Rich.
o Ghen pursued whale, deprived it of its natural liberty ! became his property.
"
In whaling, if you kill/injure whale you have deprived it of natural liberty. If you deprive it of natural liberty ! you
have made it your property.
o Accentuates the difference between capture and deprivation of natural liberty.
o Ghen won.

E. A. Stephens & Co. v Albers (Colorado 1927)

o Stephens and Co brought the silver fox to their home, domesticated it, it could eat out of their hands. It was tagged on its ear for
identification purposes.
o The silver fox escapes from Stephens, gets shot by a farmer. The farmer sold it to Albers.
o Stephens had made an effort and spent time/money bringing this silver fox to a new land, wasnt native!
o Escape DOES NOT return the silver fox to ferae naturae, also because of animum revertendi (in the habit of returning) because
he was domesticated. He was still the property of Stephens, and you cant sell what you dont already own.
o Stephens had expended time and money (like whaling in Ghen!) in making the fox domesticated, ensuring animum revertendi
and eliminating all traces of ferae naturae. Because of that, court rules that the fox had been his property.
o Stephens won.
2. Classifying property as personal or real

Haselm v lockwood (Connecticut1871)

o Haselm saw manure spread everywhere on the highway (owned by the burrough), the manure had been abandoned by original
owner (on horses)
o Haselm organized the manure, gathered it into heaps thereby making it more valuable. He left to retrieve means to carry the
manure away.
o Lockwood came along and carried off the manure and used it for his own purposes.
o Haselm had expended energy over the manure (ie. Deprived of its natural liberty), changed its form, and made it more valuable,
also provided a service to the community. Manure is only effective when you can use it to farm...and you cant farm a highway.
o Manure wasnt part of the the land. When Haselm appropriated it to his own use, it became personal property. He had a
peaceable and quiet possession. He left manure to get a means of taking it home with him, he only left it for a certain amount of
time, thats NOT abandonment. When Lockwood (asserted that it was real property arrived, manure was still Haselms, under
his control and in his possession even though he wasnt there
o Lockwood claims it was realty and state owns itbut he also says that even if it was personlty, it had been abandoned.
o But court says it was NOT abandoned, Haselm was working in the allotted time he had to get machine to get manure hed
appropriated by himself.
o Haselm won.

State of North Dakota v Dickinson Cheese (North Dakota 1972)

o Pollution of river by cheese company was what killed the fish in the nearby river. The state wants damages for value of fish
killed by this pollution.
o State cant claim damages because it is sovereign (can determine when and under what conditions fish can be takenbut cant
get damages if theyve been killed).
o State owns the river but not the fish.
o State may regulate the river and the state is responsible for property (river) for good people, but its not an OWNER with
independent cause of action, no claim upon fish (wild animals and no possession had been established)
o SO no recovery can be granted in civil actions. State doesnt have property interest in fish running wild in streams of the state
that is sufficient to support action for monetary damages of their unlawful destruction.
o State brought charges for damages against Dickinson, but there was NO case.so it was just dismissed.
o (kind of like Haslem v Lockwood, with the manure NOT being OWNED by state)