Pierson v.

Post
(1805)

Liesner v. Wanie
(1914)

Facts: Post was hunting

and in pursuit of a wild
fox. At the moment when
he was about to catch it,
Pierson swooned in and
killed that same fox. The
two argue different views
on what constitutes a wild
animal as property. Pierson
maintains that an animal
can only be considered in
someones possession once
it has been killed or
captured. Post argues that a
hunter in pursuit of
capturing an animal has
claims to that animal

Facts: Liesnerandanother
claimedtohavemortally
woundedawolfwhileout
hunting.Whileinpursuitto
goandretrievethewolf
theyhadjustwounded,
Waniearrivedonthescene
andfiredtheshotthat
ultimatelykilledthewolf.
Uponitsdeath,Wanie
retrievedthewolfandtried
toclaimitashisown
property,arguingthathe
wastheonewhofiredthe
shotthatactuallymortally
woundedthewolf.The
plaintiffLiesnerinitially
suedthedefendantWanie
inanefforttorecoverthe
bodyofthewolf.Laterin
thecasetherequestfor
damagesarose.

Issue: Does the mere

pursuit of a wild animal
allow a person to clam
rights to that animal?

Issue: Whether Leisner

issued the fatal wounding
shot? At what point inbetween both shots was the
animal wounded to the
point where it couldnt
escape?

Holding: The court held

that the mere pursuit of a
wild animal such as the fox
is not enough to claim
ownership of that animal

RULE OF LAW: to claim

property rights of a wild
animal a person must
mortally wound or kill the
animal, proving their
intention to deprive the
animal of its freedom and
natural liberties, fully
controlling it.

OVERALL RULE:
To acquire a property
right over animals wild in
nature, the pursuer must
bring them into their
power and control,
maintaining the
possibility to be
improbable.

RULE OF LAW:The
instantawildanimalis
broughtundercontrolofa
personsothattheactual
possessionispractically
inevitable,avested
propertyinterestinit
accrueswhichcannotbe
divestedbyanothers
interveningandkillingit.

Mullett v. Bradley
(1898)

Manning v.
Mithcherson (1882)

Facts:Threemenoutona
lakecameuponfishing
netsfullofhundredsof
poundsoffishand
capturedthefishfromthe
trapnetsandtookthemfor
theirown.Theirboatwas
discoveredandtheywere
askedwheretheygotthe
fishfrom.Theywerethen
askedtocomebacktothe
harborandtheyrefusedo
theywerearrested
Conversionis:.Civilform
oflarceny.Transferof
property,making
somethingsomeoneelses.
Chattel(personal
possessionnotreal
estate)outofpossessionof
anotherw/intentionof
excercisingdomination
overit.
ISSUE: Werethefishin
thenetsufficientlysecured
andinthecontrolofthenet
ownerssothattheywerein
properpossessionofthe
fishatthetimewhenthe
defendanttookthefish
fromthenet?

Facts: Mullet captured a

sea lion with intent to sell
it for profit. During his
efforts to capture the sea
lion, it was wounded in a
very distinguished and
recognizable way. He lost
the sea lion, and made no
further efforts to recapture
it assuming the
improbability of it. A
fisherman off of the coast
recaptured the sea lion
weeks later. It was then
sold to the Bradley. A year
later Mullet recognized
Bradley with the sea lion
that was once his. He sued
Bradley for the rights to
ownership of the sea lion

Facts: Ms. Mannings bird

escaped in December. Days
later Mr. Mithcerson
recovered what he believed
to be his bird which had
escaped months earlier.
Ms. Mannning asked for
her bird back from Mr.
Mitcherson in an unkind
way and he refused. She
sued him.
____________________
I what is issue, did joe
commit larceny
R-blackletter law. What is
law. What is rule be
applying. Give definitions
A-should mirror. A is met
because
C-mirror issue statement.
Therefore because.joe
did commit larceny

ISSUE: Whether or not the

plaintiff lost his right of
property in the sea lion by
reason of its escape from
his control? ANSWER:
Yes.

ISSUE: Was the bird in

controversy which was
determined to be the the
property of Ms. Manning
still her property even after
its escape?

Law does not require absolute

security to maintain possession
of fish
Escape must be improbable
but not impossible
Maintain control
-Theownersofthenets,
havingcapturedandconfined
thefish,hadacquiredsuchan
ownershipinthemthatthe
takingofthemwaslarceny.
Theyweresufficientlysecured
andinthecontrolofthenet
owners.Thejudgmentwas
reversed.

HOLDING: The plaintiff

had lost his right of
property in the sea lion by
reason of the fact that it
regained its natural liberty
without ay intention of
returning.
BATTERY CONT.
Is intentional infliction of
harm. If he knew w/ sub
certainty that plaint. Would
sit there then yes it is
batter.

At what point did the bird

regain its natural liberties?

RULE OF LAW:To
acquireapropertyrightin
animalsferaenature,the
pursuermustbringthem
intohispowerandcontrol,
andsomaintainhiscontrol
astoshowthathedoesnot
intenttoabandonthem
againtotheworldatlarge.
Anyinterventionina
personssuccessindoing
thisthiscanbeconsidered
larceny.

RULE OF LAW: : Once an

animal that is considered
wild from nature is lost and
the owner abandons it and
makes no further effort to
regain it after its loss, the
animal ceases to be the
property of its once owner.

RULE OF LAW: To have

property in animals, birds
and fishes, which are wild
by nature, one must have
them within their [actual]
possession, custody or
control, and this [they] may
do by taming,
domesticating, or even
confining them. If a bird
which was once a persons
escapes but has a tendency
of doing so and is
domesticated, it is still the
possession of the original

State v. Shaw(1902)

BATTERY:
intent, bodily contact,
bodily contact that is
harmful/offensive
Garret v Daily young
boy, takes chair. Did he
know. Intent
Did defendant know
when plaintiff would
attempt to sit where
chair had been prior
with intent to harm the
plaintiff

owner.