Animal Cases

Question 1

Pierson v. Post

“Post-haste not enough”

Answer 1

1) Majority (More than Mere Pursuit):
a) Mere pursuit doesn’t establish occupancy of a wild animal
b) Must wound or captured the animal in order to
c) deprive the animal of its natural liberty
2) Dissent (Hot Pursuit): Sufficient if pursuit inevitably and speedily would have terminated in physical possession
Policy: Promote efficient industry and labor

Question 2

Liesner v. Wanie

“Quit your Wanie-ing”

Answer 2

Property in Wild Animal if:
1) substantially permanently deprive animal of liberty
2) so in their power that escape was highly improbable, if not impossible
3) under the control of a person so that actual possession is practically inevitable
Policy:
1) Labor: Efficient and diligent should be rewarded
2) Safety: Vested interest in the animal should deter others (two people competing and chasing the same animal with guns isn’t very safe)
3) Peace in Society: Rule helps prevent disputes

Question 3

State v. Shaw

“Perfect Net? P-shaw!”

Answer 3

Property in Wild Animal if:
1) bring the animals under their power and control, and
2) then maintain sufficient control to
3) show intent not to abandon them.
Perfect Net Unnecessary: “law does not require absolute security against the possibility of escape”
Policy:
1) Judicial Efficiency: Requiring a perfectly inescapable net was “unnecessarily technical….” because it’s too difficult to do and the proof would use up too much court time.
2) Labor: Should be rewarded for maintaining reasonable precautions to prevent escape.