Ch. 1 "Concept of Property"

Question 1

What is property?

Answer 1

1. Rights among people concerning things
2. Bundle of rights
3. Tangible/intangible
4. Expectation of continuing beliefs and rights regarding tangible/intangible things by the state

Question 2

Five theories of property

Answer 2

1. Protect first possession “First come, first serve”
2. Encourage Labor
3. Maximize societal happiness (ensures owners use resources in an efficient manner - maximizes economic value)
4. Ensure democracy (facilitates democracy)
5. Faciliate personal development (Close emotional connection to tangible things)

Question 3

Pierson v. Post

Answer 3

Facts: Post was hunting a fox on unowned land. Pierson, aware that the fox was being hunted, intercepted and jilled the fox and claimed it.
Issue: What act amount to occupancy, applied to acquiring rights in wild animals?
Holding: Pursuing wild animals does NOT give rights to a person but wounding/killing animals is sufficient to show possession
-“Certain control” Killing, trapping, or mortally wounding the animal.
Takeaway: There is a spectrum of what capture mean; still continues to be relevant today (baseball video)

Question 4

Five theories applies to Pierson v. Post

Answer 4

1. First possession
   - Benefit: Price
   - Cost: Using resources to capture
2. Encourage Labor
   - “technology” dogs used to hunt
   - Incentives to invest
3. Maximize societal happiness
   - Certainty: easier to administer the rule
   - Social order: easier to resolve disputes w/o litigation or efficiency
4. Ensure Democracy
   - “free riding” people benefit from other peoples resources
5. Personal development
   - Wounded pride and family honor, not only about money but the nature of the sport`

Question 5

Right to transfer

Answer 5

Defined: Any owner may freely transfer or alienate any of her property
Case: Johnson v. M’intosh

Question 6

Johnson v. M’intosh

Answer 6

Legal positivism: Property exists to the extent that it’s recognized by government
Facts: P claimed title under conveyance from Piankeshaw indians. Defendants claimed their grant for same property was the U.S. and was thus superior
Issue: Did Native Americans have legal authority to dispose of real property by sale to private individuals?
(Should U.S> courts respect law predecessor that conveyances by indigenous people? NO.)
Holding: Title belonged to discoverer and power of indians was denied under US laws
Takeaway: Title belonged to discoverer and power of indians were denied under laws of the US