Cases Flashcards
Pierson v. Post
Facts: P chased and pursued a fox, D killed it and took it away.
Rule: If wild animals (ferae naturae) are captured, usually the belong to the capturer. Mere pursuit of an animal does not give one a legal right to it.
Johnson v. M’Intosh
Facts: Action for ejectment for lands in the State of IL, in which P claims superior title under purchase and conveyance from the certain Indian nations over D under later grant by US Govt.
Rule: Discovery of land gives the exclusive right to settle, possess, and govern the new land, and the absolute title to the soil, subject to certain rights of occupancy only in the natives.
INS v. AP
Facts: A question of unfair competition between two news collecting companies when one company reproduced the others news as their own.
Rule: There is a quasi property interest in news collected by an agency against other news collection agencies. It is unfair business competition for a news collection agency to distribute the news collected by another news collection agency.
Cheney Bros v. Doris Silk Co.
Facts: P sought to enjoin the D from copying its dress designs during the season.
Rule: In absence of some recognized right at common law, or under a statute, a man’s property right is limited to the actual chattels that embody his invention.
Moore v. Regents of UC
Facts: P brought several actions against Ds including conversion and breach of fiduciary duty when his cells were used in medical research without his permission.
Rule: Failure of a physician to disclose his personal interest unrelated to the patient’s health constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty. A person does not retain ownership interest in cells after they have left their body.
Armory v. Delamire
P (chimney sweep’s boy) found a jewel and took it to D (goldsmith) to know what it was. D’s apprentice removed the stone, D offered to buy the jewel. When P refused and asked for its return, D returned it without the stones.
Rule: The first finder of lost or abandoned property has superior property rights in such property against all others except the true owner.
Hannah v. Peel
Facts: P (soldier staying in the house owned (but not occupied) by D)), found a brooch and then gave the brooch to the police who later, after not finding the rightful owner, gave the brooch to D, who then sold the brooch.
Rule: Because D was not physically present in the house at any time, P’s find was defensible against all parties except the rightful owner.
McAvoy v. Medina
Facts: P customer at D’s barber shop and found a pocket-book on the counter, left with D to attempt to discover the rightful owner. Rightful owner was not found, P demanded return of the pocket-book, D refused to give back.
Rule: Mislaid property - when the owner voluntarily puts it in a particular place, intending to retain ownership, but then fails to reclaim it or forgets where it is. Goes to owner of property.
Howard v. Kunto
Facts: D built and occupied wrong parcel of land on Hood Canal.
Rule: To constitute adverse possession, there must be actual possession that is uninterrupted, open and notorious, hostile and exclusive and under a claim of right made in good faith for the statutory period. Summer possession can constitute continuous possession if such possession is similar to the conduct of surrounding owners. Tacking of adverse possession is permitted if the successive occupants are in privity, if there is a reasonable connection between the predecessors and the successive occupants.
O’Keefe v. Snyder
Facts: P painted three pictures, allegedly stolen and in D’s possession.
Rule: The statute of limitations for replevin will begin when the owner of the chattel should have through due diligence discovered facts that form the basis for a cause of action. Rule of discovery and not adverse possession is what determines title to chattels.
Gruen v. Gruen
Facts: P commenced an action seeking a declaration that he is the rightful owner of a painting that his now deceased father had given to him, despite the fact that he never retained possession of the painting.
Rule: In order for an inter vivos gift to be valid, there must be intent on the part of the donor to make a gift, delivery by the donor to the donee and acceptance of the gift by the donee. An inter vivos gift requires that the donor intend to make an irrevocable present transfer of ownership. Delivery of the gift can be by physical delivery or constructive delivery, sufficient to divest the donor of dominion of the property. Acceptance by the donee will be presumed when the gift is of value to the donee.
