Pierson v Post

Overview

Whether Lodowick Post, by the pursuit with his hounds, acquired a right to the fox that was killed and taken by Pierson.

Animal in Question: Wild animal, specifically a fox (animal ferae naturae).
Legal Principle: Property in wild animals is primarily acquired through occupancy.

Delivered by: TOMPKINS, J.
Main Argument: Pursuit alone does not constitute occupancy, thus Post did not have legal rights to the fox.

Historical Legal References:
- Justinian's Institutes: Pursuit does not confer ownership.
- Fleta and Bracton: Same principles as Justinian.
- Puffendorf and Bynkershoek: Define occupancy as actual corporal possession.
Contrary Opinions:
- Barbeyrac argues against the necessity of bodily seizure but does not suggest mere pursuit is sufficient.
- Grotius: Recognizes occupancy with instruments (e.g., nets) if they deprive the wild animal of liberty.

Mere pursuit is insufficient; Pierson's interception and killing of the fox granted him ownership.
Judgment against Post was reversed.

Delivered by: LIVINGSTON, J.
Main Argument: Pursuit with the intention and means to capture should establish rights to the animal.

Rationale for Encouragement:
- Encouragement of hunting benefits public by reducing populations of harmful wild animals.
- Hunters should be rewarded for their effort and expense.
Custom and Practicality:
- Historical and cultural practices of hunting should inform the decision.
- Laws should reflect contemporary practices rather than ancient precedents.
Final Position:
- Pursuit with a reasonable prospect of capture should confer rights.
- Judgment should have been affirmed in favor of Post.

Outcome: Judgment of reversal.
Implications: Established legal precedent that pursuit does not confer rights of ownership over wild animals.