Possession and the Law of Capture Flashcards
Pierson v Post
Facts: Post was chasing/hunting fox, Pierson intercepted the fox being chased and killed it. Both claim rights to fox.
Held: Pierson wins. Although maybe what he did was uncourteous, Post was not in possession of the fox, he was merely pursuing it.
Reasons:
Fox is an animal fertoe naturoe, and property in such animals is acquired by occupancy only
Mere pursuit is no legal right to the fox
Popov v Hiyashi
Facts: Barry Bonds hit record HR, P prepared to catch the ball (of high value). P and D both anticipated getting ball: tickets in RF, brought gloves. Ball landed in P’s glove, but uncertain if it was caught (he had to reach for the ball, may have lost balance). P was tackled by crowd as soon as ball hit glove and he fell. P intended to establish and maintain possession, but at some point the ball left glove and was on ground. D picked it up and put in his pocket and kept it hidden until there was a camera on him. Uncertain whether P had ball as he descended into crowd, or if he would have been able to retain control of ball but for crowd interference. P pled cause of action for conversion.
Held: Draw. D’s claim is compromised by P’s pre-possessory interest. P cannot demonstrate full control. Albeit for different reasons, they stand before the court in exactly the same legal position. Their legal claims are of equal quality and they are equally entitled to the ball. Therefore ball must be sold and proceeds divided equally.
Reasons:
- A single definition of possession cannot be applied to different industries (Gray’s definition adopted here for baseball)
- P had a qualified pre-possessory right, D had full right to possession
- Giving P ball assumes he would have caught, giving D ball assumes P would have dropped
The Tubantia
Facts: Virgin Dutch steamship sunk in WW1 by Chad German U boat. Six years later British salvage company (P) set out on expedition (employed divers, engaged tugs and steamers) to salvage the ship or recover anything of value. Realized they couldn’t raise the ship, but continued diving operations to grab cargo until winter. P then place buoys to record where the wreck is when they come back next spring. When P came back they find an eccentric noble Count Zanardi Landi (D) has cucked them: he made his own salvage company and has docked his boat so P can’t continue operations (they’ve already sunk 40k into this project). D refuses to leave and stirs shit up with P: e.g. gets their sounding lines entangled with P’s lines, raises P’s anchor, sending divers too close to wreck, other general fuckery.
Held: P wins.
There was animus possidendi (intent to possess) by P. Use, occupation, power to exclude others from interfering. Even if only entered at short periods of time. Therefore, P had possession.
Was trespass. D’s actions put P’s ships in danger and made P’s divers change their operations. D wilfully and wrongfully interrupted and molested P in their lawful undertaking.
Judge says no one can interfere with first salvor except in cases of manifest incompetence (not the case here)
