Pierson v. Post
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pierson v. Post, 3 Cai. R. 175, 2 Am. Dec. 264 (N.Y. 1805), is a famous Supreme Court of New York case about a disagreement over a dead fox. The case is frequently used to illustrate the complexities of establishing "possession" under the law.
Contents |
[edit] Background
Lodowick Post, a fox hunter, was chasing a fox through a vacant lot when out of the blue Pierson killed the fox and took it away. Post sued Pierson for damages against his possession of the fox. Post argued that he had ownership of the fox as chasing it was sufficient to establish possession. The trial court found in favor of Post. The issue put to the Supreme Court of New York was whether one could obtain possession of a wild animal (Ferae naturae), in this case the fox, by pursuit.
[edit] Ruling
The Court had a difficult time finding directly applicable authorities but they tried to apply them nonetheless. They reasoned that given the common law requirement to have control over one's possessions, merely giving chase was not sufficient. Something more was needed, otherwise law would create a slippery slope.
- If the first seeing, starting, or pursuing such animals, without having so wounded, circumvented or ensnared the animal, so as to deprive them of their natural liberty, and subject them to the control of their pursuer, should afford the basis of actions against others for intercepting and killing them, it would prove a fertile course of quarrels and litigation.
The majority opinion found that though it may have been rude for Pierson to have killed the fox, there was no reason to object as only the person to mortally wound or seize the animal can acquire possession of it.
The dissent, however, was not satisfied by the authorities used. Instead it was argued that pursuit should be considered sufficient, as it serves a useful purpose of encouraging hunters to rid the countryside of that "wild and noxious beast" known as the fox. The dissent further acknowledged that possession can be seen in relative terms where the continued chase may merely be a formality of the pre-existing control already exerted by the hunter. The dissent was authored by future Supreme Court Justice Henry Brockholst Livingston.
[edit] Conclusion
The trial court was reversed so Pierson did not have to pay any damages.
[edit] Notes
- ^ 3 Cai. R. 175 is an abbreviation for volume 3 of Caines' Reports, page 175, which was in turn named for George Caines, who reported New York cases in the early 19th century.
- ^ Full text of the opinion
- Download an audio version of this opinion from AudioCaseFiles.com
