here you will see the Pierson v Post case brief.
Pierson v Post is a fundamental case in American property law.
Despite the fact that the Pierson v Post case was merely over which of two men right to own a fox, resolving it required determining when a wild animal becomes “property.”
Here I will share with you the Pierson v Post case brief to help you understand everything you need to know about the Pierson v Post case in a simple and accurate way.
Interested in learning how to write your own case brief? learn here
Transform Your Communication, Elevate Your Career!
Ready to take your professional communication skills to new heights? Dive into the world of persuasive business correspondence with my latest book, “From Pen to Profit: The Ultimate Guide to Crafting Persuasive Business Correspondence.”
What You’ll Gain:
Let’s get started
Jump to section
Pierson v Post case brief
Pierson v. Post – 3 Cai. R. 175, 1805 N.Y. LEXIS 311
Decided on, August 1805
By
Tompkins, J., New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Parties
Pierson is an Appellant and Lodowick Post is a Respondent.
Procedural History
Respondent sued Appellant in a court of Queens County for trespass. The court decided in the Respondent’s favor.
The Appellant appealed to the New York Supreme Court of Judicature which reversed the decision of the trial court and ruled in favor of the Appellant.
Facts
Respondent was hunting a fox through a vacant lot.
The Appellant came across the fox, killed it, and carried it away, knowing it was being Hunted by Respondent.
Respondent filed a trespass suit against Appellant, seeking damages for his possession of the fox.
Respondent asserted that chasing an animal in the process of hunting was sufficient to establish ownership.
The trial court ruled in Respondent’s favor.
As a result of the appellant’s dissatisfaction with that ruling, he filed this appeal.
Issue
whether one could obtain property rights to a wild animal by mere hunting
Rule
Hunt by itself confers no property or title on a huntsman, and Hunting combined with wounding is similarly ineffective unless the animal is actually taken.
Reasoning
When applying the rule to the fact the court reasoned that Finding and pursuing a wild animal does not entitle a person to ownership. Even injuring the animal does not give you the right to keep it. To be considered in possession of an animal, it must be captured or killed.
Therefore the Respondent would be termed to possess the fox only if he captured or killed it.
Holding
No, one could not obtain property rights to a wild animal by mere hunting.
Judgment
The decision of the trial court was reversed.
Dissenting Opinion
Justice Livingston dissented. The authorities listed in the majority opinion did not satisfy Livingston.
Justice Livingston opined that stated that chase should be regarded as sufficient because it encourages hunters to eradicate the fox from the countryside.
Livingston also noted that possession might be viewed in relative terms, with the hunter’s continuing pursuit being only a formality of the hunter’s pre-existing control.
Read the full Judgment here
Other case briefs to read
- Marbury versus Madison case brief
- Lucy v Zehmer case brief
- Pennoyer v Neff case brief
- Hamer v Sidway case brief
- Hawkins v Mcgee case brief
- Tinker v des Moines case brief
- Hadley v Baxendale case brief
- Duncan v Louisiana case brief
- Garrett v Dailey case brief
- Brown v Board of education case brief
- Griswold v Connecticut case brief
- Katz v United States case brief
- Riley v California case brief | United States v. Wurie
- Leonard v Pepsico case brief
- Wickard v Filburn case brief
- District of Columbia v. Heller case brief
- Gonzales v Raich case brief
- Shelley v Kraemer case brief
