Pierson v. Post
3 Cai. Cas. 175 · New York Supreme Court · 1805
Facts
Lodowick Post was pursuing a fox with his hounds on waste and uninhabited ground. He was on the point of seizing the fox when Pierson intercepted it. Pierson killed the fox and carried it away. Pierson acted in view of Post and his dogs, with knowledge of the chase.
Procedural history
This cause came before the court on a return to a writ of certiorari directed to one of the justices of Queen's county. The lower court had ruled in favor of Post, but this court found that judgment to be erroneous and reversed it.
Issue
Did Lodowick Post acquire a legal right to or property in a fox by pursuing it with hounds, such that he could sustain an action against Pierson for intercepting, killing, and taking the fox away?
Holding
The court reversed the lower court's judgment, finding that Post did not acquire a legal right to the fox by mere pursuit, and thus could not sustain an action against Pierson for killing and taking it.
Rule
Property in wild animals (ferae naturae) is acquired by occupancy, which requires actual corporal possession. Mere pursuit, even with hounds, is insufficient to establish occupancy. Occupancy is achieved by mortal wounding, circumventing, or ensnaring the animal to deprive it of its natural liberty and bring it under the pursuer's certain control. A stricter rule is adopted for certainty and to prevent litigation.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.