Escape Cases

Question 1

Mullett v. Bradley

“Sea Lion Safari”

Answer 1

The original owner of an animal ferae naturae loses property if the animal escapes and regains its “natural liberty” (free of all artificial restraint, led by the bent of its inclinations, and can provide for itself) unless it has some “animus reventendi” (intent to return).

Policy Considerations: Abandonment, effective marking, awareness of F, investment, time/distance, pursuit, labor

Result: F

Question 2

Manning v. Mitcherson

“Love Canary”

Answer 2

To have property in animals ferae naturae, “one must have them within his actual possession, custody or control, and this he may do by taming, domesticating, or confining them.”

Policy Considerations: Abandonment, effective marking, awareness of F, investment, time/distance, pursuit, labor, personal attachment

Result: OO

Question 3

E.A. Stevens v. Albers

“Foxy Tattoos”

Answer 3

1) The animals have value and are part of an important industry, the court will develop rules more protective of the OO’s investment.
2) OO of an escaped animal retains property rights in it where it was a valuable animal and F should have known that the animal had escaped from a prior owner.

Policy Considerations: Abandonment, effective marking, awareness of F, investment, time/distance, pursuit, labor, industry

Result: OO

Question 4

Kesler v. Jones

“Chasing Foxes”

Answer 4

The owner of an escaped animal ferae naturae retains property rights because it has not returned to natural liberty when a third party takes possession of the animal only a short time after it escaped and the owner is still in pursuit.

Policy Considerations: Abandonment, awareness of F, investment, time/distance, pursuit, labor, industry

Result: OO