Pierson v. Post
Supreme Court of
3 Cai. R. 175.
Johnson,
pp. 17-20
Facts: Post was chasing a fox when
all of the sudden Pierson popped out of nowhere and killed the fox and took it
away. Post sued Pierson, claiming that
he should rightly own the fox because he was the one chasing it. The trial court ruled in Post’s favor, and
Pierson appealed, saying that Post failed to state a cause of action upon which
relief could be granted.
Issue: Did Post acquire the right
to possess the fox by pursuit such that he has a cause of action against
Pierson?
Rule: NEW RULE! Mere pursuit of a wild animal does not
constitute possession of that animal.
(“Actual bodily seizure”, killing, or “mortal wounding” seem to be
sufficient to establish possession.)
Analysis: The majority cites “the
authorities”. They vary slightly, but
none of them allow for possession by pursuit.
The majority is willing to go along with such authorities because they
want to announce a simple rule that is easy and inexpensive to police. They don’t want to generate tons of vexing
litigation. Finally, they state that not
everything that is impolite—or even immoral—shall necessarily be declared illegal.
The
dissent thinks the authorities aren’t so important and that the court can and
should announce its own rule since there is no case law or statutory authority
to constrain it.
Conclusion: The trial court is reversed
and Pierson gets to keep the fox.
Notes
and Questions
1. I think the majority builds
at least the appearance of a foundation of authority for the position they were
going to take anyway. The majority appears to find support in the very old
authorities they consult for this rule. The
court was concerned with policy, too: they wanted sort of a “bright line” rule
that was easy and cheap to enforce. The
discussion of “mortal wounding” is mere dicta and doesn’t have an effect on the
outcome of this case.
2. I think a key question of
fact in this case is whether the whale ended up on the beach dead, and if so,
whether its death was caused by Ahab’s harpoon.
If Ahab “mortally wounded” the whale, then he can argue that he took
possession of it. Furthermore, Olive did
not kill, capture, or mortally wound the whale, but just sat around and let it
come to her.
However, Olive could argue that Ahab let the whale escape and abandoned his
pursuit, which suggests according to the case that he gave up possession. I believe the engravings have no impact on
the outcome of the case.