Cases Flashcards
Johnson v. McIntosh
Case by Acquisition by conquest/discovery
Europeans v. Natives
AQUISITION BY DISCOVERY - FIRST IN TIME FIRST IN RIGHT and can aquire title by discovery. Facts: P’s took land from aboriginals. Aboriginals were seen as not sophisticated enough to own land. They only had right to mere occupancy. By awarding title, the landowner would have the right to exclude other people from exploiting natural resources on this land. Thus, this promotes another goal of property right to prevent tragedy of the commons by excluding other people’s rights on the property.
ACQUISITION BY CONQUEST: When two or more lay claims to the same land, the winner of the battle rightfully acquires the land.
Ghen v. Rich
WILD ANIMALS (FERAE NATURAE)
whale case
Rule of Custom/Competition: Court awarded custom of the hunters. We should follow custom because it has already been accepted by society to well serve its purpose. This also supports Locke’s Labor Theory because a hunter’s effort should be rewarded in order to create incentives for hunters to maximize the efficiency of hunting. The downside of custom is that it is difficult to determine where/when hunting begins and to compare the amount of efforts contributed by the parties. Custom represents fairness.
Keeble v. Hickingill
WILD ANIMALS (FERAE NATURAE)
duck pond case
RATIONAE SOLI - (by reason of the soil) - a landowner has certain rights on account of his ownership of the soil. Establishes exclusive right to hunt wild game on landowner’s property, subject only to government’s right to regulate.
Popov v. Hayashi
FUGITIVE RESOURCES
Where an actor undertakes significant but incomplete steps to achieve possesion of a piece of abandoned (baseball in stands) AND the effort is interrupted by the unlawful acts of others, the actor allegedly has a legally cognizable pre-possessory interest in the property (qualified right of posession).
Pierson v. Post
WILD ANIMAL (FERAE NATURAE)
Fox Case
RULE OF CAPTURE: Mere pursuit of a wild animal is insufficient to vest title in the hunter; and the hunter has to “occupy” it to aquire it. Advances the goal of the society to capture wild animals, foster competition, and award capturing the ferae naturae. Possibly unfair for hunters who put in the effort. Its easy to administer b/c it is easy to determine who captured the wild animal. Whoever ultimately captures/occupies the animal aquires title. “Robs it of its natural rights”. Dissent adopts LOCKE’S LABOR THEORY. Awards the person who put in the most labor. Who put in the most time and energy. Who hunted the animal the longest. Who put in the most work.
INS v. AP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: quasi-property - an owner may not hold property rights against the public but may maintain property rights against specific individuals (competitors). Followed along with labor theory and protecting someone who labored to provide information. One who has gathered news or general information for the purpose of publication has an interst that is entitled to protection from interference (misappropriation).
Moore v. Regents
PROPERTY OVER ONE’S BODY PARTS: Body parts and organs are not considered property once they leave the body out of public policy concerns. Once it leaves the body, the locke theory can be applied in that the scientists put effort into creating something. They put work and innovation and to forbid the use of expelled body parts would inhibit innovation. But there are PP concerns to protect public health and safety.
Jacque v. Steenberg Homes
THE RIGHT TO EXCLUDE OTHERS FROM LAND: Society has an interest in punishing and deterring trespassers beyond that of protecting the interests of the individual landowners. The right to exclude is ironclad.
States v. Shack
THE RIGHT TO EXCLUDE OTHERS FROM LAND: Trespass does not include a situation where representatives of recognized charitable groups enter private land in order to provide governement aid to those workers who need it. Non-owners may enter onto an owner’s property in order to provide governmental services, even if the owner objects to the entry.
Armory v. Delamirie
LOST OR MISLAID PROPERTY
FINDERS KEEPERS RULE - The finder of lost property has superior title to the rest of the world but the true owner. First who lays hands on it, other than the original owner, has superior title against everyone elese who came later.
Hannah v. Peel
LOST OR MISLAID PROPERTY
Brooch on the windowsill case
court awarded the finder of the lost or mislaid property over the landowner. The owner of land possesses anything attached to or under the surface of the land, but not necessarily things lying on top.
McAvoy v. Medina
MISLAID PROPERTY and ABANDONED PROPERTY
purse left on table and owner forgot to pick it up.
Mislaid property is not subject to the rule that a finder of lost property has a valid claim to the property against everyone except the true owner. Mislaid property is property that the owner voluntarily placed somewhere and then neglected to remove. Mislaid property shall go to the owner of the land. In this case, court found for store owner to hold on to it for the true owner over the finder. Abandoned propety is when its been intentionally left and not wanted back. Owner intentionally relinquishes all legal rights with no intention to confer rights or return for it. Property goes to finder.
Newman v. Bost
GIFTS
House keeper claimed causa mortis gift from the deceased landowner. Actual, manual delivery is needed if the item is capable of being given and is in the presence of the donor and the donee. Constructive delivery (like a key) is deemed sufficient. Symbolic delivery not enough for the court.
Gruen v. Gruen
GIFTS
A father held a life estate painting but gifted to his son. A valid inervivos gift was made as the donor indentended to make a gift to his son.
White v. Brown
Rule of construction of an ambigious will favors a conveyance of fee simple absolute. No restraint on alienation.
