First Possession

Question 1

Pierson v Post Facts

Answer 1

• Post was hunting, chasing and pursuing the fox with his dog and hounds
• Pierson, knowing the fox was being pursued by Post, preventing him from catching the fox, thus interfered with his possession
• Post filed a suit against Pierson
• Post claimed that the property of the fox’s pelt and carcass were his because he had already begun pursuing the fox
• Post claimed that Pierson was not justified in law in interfering and taking the fox
• Lower court found in favor of Post and Pierson appealed

Question 2

Pierson Issue

Answer 2

• What act amounts to possession when it comes to acquiring rights to wild animals
• Whether one could obtain property rights to a wild animal
• Previous case law: animals are acquired by occupancy only

Question 3

Pierson holding

Answer 3

• judgment was erroneous and ought to be reversed
• appeal allowed for Pierson

Question 4

Pierson reasoning

Answer 4

• Mere pursuit gave Post no right to the fox but that he became the property of Pierson who intercepted and killed him
• Post only chased the fox, he did not do anything else for him to claim ownership
• Pierson is the one who labored to kill him

Question 5

Pierson Ratio

Answer 5

• Post only chased the fox, he did not do anything else for him to claim ownership
• Pierson is the one who labored to kill him
• to have possession over a wild animal, you must deprive it of its natural liberty, then kill it

Question 6

Tubantia Facts

Answer 6

• No attempt to salvage the ship after it was sunk in 1916, until 1922 when the plaintiffs determined to raise the vessel or recover anything of value in her
• On July 1923, the defendants arrived with their steamship in close proximity to the plaintiffs’ salvage steamer
• The defendants started to interfere with the plaintiffs’ operations in several occasions they down divers on to or close proximity to the wreck
• The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants intentionally and without justification interfered with their property, and their salvage operations

Question 7

Pierson issue

Answer 7

• What constitutes ownership, how do we know when something is in one’s possession
• Did the defendants trespass

Question 8

Tubantia holding

Answer 8

• Plaintiffs had the ship and her cargo in their possession
• Imposition of an injunction on the defendants

Question 9

Tubantia Reasoning

Answer 9

• Plaintiffs’ physical possession and intention
• The person who first obtains possession of a res nullius (nobody’s thing) becomes owner
• By attaching lines to the wreck and fastening them with buoys the wreck was reduced into possession
• By employing during two seasons various vessels suitable for salvage work with competent crew and marked out the area occupied by the Tubantia
• There was power to exclude strangers from interfering if the plaintiffs did not use unlawful force (intention to possess the ship and exclude others)
• The defendants did trespass into the vessel
• The defendants’ interference with the plaintiffs, however, was high handed and deliberate and unless restrained they may repeat it
• Injunction granted

Question 10

Tubantia Ratio

Answer 10

An injunction is properly claimed when there is a threat or danger of repetition of the wrongs complained of, especially when they affect material interests, though it is to be strictly limited so as to not enlarge the rights of one party or infringe on the rights of the other

Question 11

Popov v Hayashi Facts

Answer 11

• Popov and Hayashi both attended a baseball game with the hope of catching the ball
• A ball was hit to Popov who caught it, but it slipped out of his glove as dozens of people descended on him to get the ball
• Popov intended at all times to establish and maintain possession of the ball but then at one point it left the glove fully and ended up on the ground
• This is when Hayashi saw the ball and hid it in his pocket
• He is entitled to conversion tort

Question 12

Popov issue

Answer 12

Was Popov in possession of the ball (required for conversion)

Question 13

Popov holding

Answer 13

• The court is required to balance the interests of all parties thus the ball must be sold and the money split
• According to the concept of equitable division
• Was sold for 450k

Question 14

Popov Reasoning

Answer 14

• Gray: a person who catches a ball that enters the stands is the owner. A ball is caught if the person has achieved complete control of the ball at the point in time that the momentum of the ball and the momentum of the fan while catching the ball ceases. A ball which is dislodged by incidental contact with an inanimate object or another person, before momentum has ceased, is not possessed. Incidental contact with another person is contact that is not intended by another person. The first person to pick up a loose ball is the true possessor
• Second part: efforts to establish possession were interrupted by a collective assault of a band of wrongdoers
  Question is raised whether an action for conversion can proceed where the plaintiff has failed to establish possession or title (IT CAN)

Question 15

Popov Ratio

Answer 15

new rule: where an actor undertakes significant but incomplete steps to achieve possession of a piece of abandoned personal property and the effort is interrupted by the lawful acts of other, the actor has a legally cognizable pre-possessory interest in the property
- can have conversion if the person has a right to possession (even if they don’t yet possess it)