Property – Helmholz: Fall-Winter 2008-2009

PERSONAL PROPERTY

WILD ANIMALS:

1.  Pierson v. Post:

  1. FACTS: Man hunting fox, after an hour another kills and takes the fox. Man sues for return of fox.
  2. ELEMENTS regarding possession of wild animals:

i.  Must deprive the animal of its natural liberty. DONE BY:

1.  Must mortally wound the fox.

2.  AND

3.  Must not abandon pursuit.

  1. DISSENT – This dissuades fox hunting, which is a noble goal – eliminate the menace that is foxes.

2.  BLACKSTONE’S OTHER TYPES:

  1. Ferae naturae, per industriam hominis:
  2. Wild animal captured and tamed by man.
  3. Considered property, but if at any time they regain their natural liberty, property rights instantly cease.
  4. Animum revertendi
  5. Animals that can leave and return by their usual custom.
  6. Lose property interest if they stray and do not return by their usual way.
  7. Markings (collars, etc.) cause property right to be retained.

3.  Buster v. Newkirk

  1. Trover: Compelling a forced sale…so if Defendant took something, he would be forced to pay the plaintiff for that thing.
  2. FACTS: Newkirk mortally wounds deer, goes home, it runs to Defendant’s house who kills it and skins it.
  3. Follows Pierson v. Post:
  4. Must mortally would fox – DONE!
  5. AND
  6. Must not abandon pursuit – HE ABANDONED PURSUIT!

4.  Keeble v. Hickeringill

  1. FACTS: Man shoots a shotgun near a duck pond, scaring the ducks away for four months.
  2. Not liable for property loss, since you cannot quantify the property that was lost.
  3. ELEMENTS: Defendant liable for lost duck hunting business:
  4. Malicious
  5. Intent to HARM plaintiff!
  6. AND
  7. Unlawful Act.
  8. Shotgun blast was unlawful.

2.  Not liable if he built another duck pond across the road.

  1. Hindered Trade.
  2. Missing ducks.

5.  Dapson v. Daly

  1. FACTS: P shot at deer and hit it. D shot later, hit it, and took possession of it. P sues for replevin.
  2. Replevin – Actual return of a chattel.
  3. ELEMENTS OF THIS CASE:
  4. Plaintiff must have corporeal possession.
  5. If no possession, must show title in another way.
  6. By lack of hunting license, P shows that he has no right to title and therefore loses the case.

6.  State of Ohio v. Shaw

  1. Criminal case!
  2. FACTS: Guys steal fish out of a net. Found liable.
  3. ELEMENTS: Determination of Possession:
  4. Must bring animals under power and control.
  5. Fish were deprived of natural liberty by the net.
  6. They could have been taken at any time by the owner.
  7. So maintain his control to show that he does intend to abandon them again.
  8. NET was obvious.

7.  Ghen v. Rich

  1. FACTS: BOMB LANCE AND FLOATING WHALE BODIES!
  2. ELEMENTS OF POSSESSION:
  3. When a whale has been killed, and is anchored and left with marks of appropriation, it is the property of the captors.
  4. Why different from others?
  5. Practical difficulties in hunting whales – practice limited to THIS industry
  6. To encourage the industry, by preventing economically prohibitive hunting means.
  7. Pervasiveness in the industry:
  8. The rule has worked, because the industry has grown around it.
  9. If fisherman does all that it is possible to do to reclaim the fish, then he should have possession.

ABANDONED PROPERTY

1)  ELEMENTS: How is a property abandoned?

a.  Owner voluntarily

b.  AND

c.  intentionally

d.  relinquishes ownership

e.  WITH

f.  Intent to give up both title and possession.

i.  Eads v. Brazleton - Boat was abandoned because it was left for 20+ years w/o anyone attempting to recover it, also let silt and mineral build-up cover it in an island.

ii. Haslem v. Lockwood – Manure on a road is abandoned because it is not wanted on the road, and if owner had wanted it he would have picked it up.

2)  What happens to finder?

a.  Finder obtains both possession and title if he:

b.  exercises control over the property

c.  WITH

d.  Intent to assert ownership.

i.  Eads v. Brazleton –Shipowner did not EXERCISE CONTROL over the property, he merely INTENDED TO exercise control over it at a later date.

  1. HAslem v. Lockwood - You can lay claim to abandoned property by changing its nature and enhancing its value, which also gives you a reasonable period in which to remove the property.

3)  What if something becomes embedded in the soil?

  1. It belongs to the landowner. Because of embedding.

FINDERS’ RIGHTS:

ELEMENTS:

1)  Owner does not lose title.

2)  WHAT IS A FINDER?

  1. Someone who takes physical control over something.
  2. With intent to assume dominion over it.

3)  Finder has rights superior to everyone but the true owner.

  1. Armory v. Delamirie:
  2. FACTS: Chimney boy finds jewel in the course of business, brings it to jeweler who will not give it back.
  3. Court finds for boy based on element listed above.
  4. If thief steals jewel and gives it to B and B refuses to return it, he is liable to thief.

4)  Prior Possessor wins possession rights over a subsequent possessor (applies both to personal property and real property)

  1. Clark v. Maloney:
  2. FACTS: P ties logs together, they get loose and are recovered by the D. P sues for their return (replevin)

ii. Court finds for P, since he physically possessed them and made special property of them (Through binding), which rested in him the rights against all the world but the true owner.

EXCEPTIONS:

1)  Constructive Possession

a.  The law treats someone as if he is in possession even if he is unaware of it.

  1. South Staffordshire v. Sharman
  2. FACTS: P hired D to clean a dirty pool. At the bottom, in the mud was found a few gold rings that the D took. P sued for their return.
  3. RESULT: A landowner is in constructive possession of the objects located under the surgace of her land even if she if unaware of their possession…
  4. THEREFORE, Ring owner is primary possessor, owner of pool is secondary possessor (finder) and the pool boy is the subsequent possessor.
  5. HOWEVER: If owner has never TAKEN POSSESSION OF THE HOME or DID NOT MAKE IT “PERSONAL SPACE” then the owner DOES NOT take constructive possession.

i.  Hannah v. Peel

  1. FACTS: Peel owns large home requisitioned for army purposes. He never moved into it. Soldier finds a brooch on the premises.
  2. RESULT: Soldier prevails b/c owner never took possession of home.

2)  Objects found in public places:

  1. Lost property – Goes to the finder.
  2. Mislaid property – goes to the owner of the premises
  3. Since person might return, as mislaid says that there is an intent to put it there and person might come back for it.

Here are the four categories:

3)  a. Lost – The true owner has been unintentionally dispossessed of the property. The finder has better title to lost stuff than anyone except the true owner.

4)  b. Mislaid – The true owner intentionally left the stuff sitting around, intending to pick it up, but forgot. In this case, the owner of the property where the stuff is found has better title to the stuff than anyone except the true owner.

5)  c. Abandoned – The previous owner intentionally gave up the property and left it lying around so that someone else could acquire it. For example, if you leave furniture on the curb to be picked up by the garbage truck, it could be understood to be abandoned property. The finder of such property has an unqualified right to it.

6)  d. Treasure trove – This one is like pirate booty! If you find hidden treasure that has been hidden for so long that it would be impossible to find the true owner, then the treasure is awarded to the finder as long as they weren’t trespassing.

WRONGFUL TAKING OF POSSESSION:

Jus tertii – Defense that neither P nor D but third party is true opwner, and only he can bring the lawsuit.

1)  Defense not allowed in actions to recover possession (replevin).

  1. Anderson v. Gouldberg – “Plaintiff’s possession must have been lawful…as against the person who deprived him of it; and possession is good title against all the world except those having a better title.”
  2. FACTS: Plaintiff trespasses and cuts down logs. Defendants are hired by someone else to steal the logs, and does so.
  3. Used by Easterbrook in 2006 where one thief can bring action against another thief who stole the ill-gotten good.

2)  Defense IS allowed in cases involving DAMAGES (trover)

a.  Russell v. Hill

  1. On the other hand, in this case with analogous fact pattern, the court decided the other way.
  2. Afraid of double liability through the landowner as well.

BAILMENTS:

1)  DEFINITION: When one person gives temporary possession of her property to another wherein bailee has possession of another’s goods.

2)  CREATION: Alleged bailee must

a.  Assume physical control with

b.  Intent to possess.

c.  And has possession.

3)  ELEMENTS:

a.  Delivery by bailor to bailee

b.  Acceptance by bailee

c.  Taking of possession.

4)  INTENT:

  1. Mistake as to Contents:
  2. Often does not create possession of the object.
  3. Value Undisclosed to Bailee:
  4. If bailor does not disclose exceptional value of bailed item, bailment is still created.
  5. Risk of care on bailee when he accepts possession of the item.
  6. Peet v. Roth Hotel à P gives ring to hotel, not telling them it is valuable, and cashier negligently loses the ring. Held for P.

5)  STANDARD OF CARE:

  1. Bailment for Sole benefit of bailee:
  2. Bailee is required to use extraordinary care.
  3. Bailee liable for even slight neglect that results in loss of goods.
  4. Bailment for mutual benefit of bailor and bailee:
  5. Bailee must exercise ordinary care and is liable for ordinary negligence.
  6. Peet v. Roth Hotel – Mutual benefit exists where bailee charges for service. Usual service for guests in keeping property, therefore mutual benefit.(good will?).
  7. Bailment for Sole Benefit of Bailor:
  8. “Gratuitous bailment”
  9. Bailee must use only slight care and is liable only for gross negligence.
  10. Involuntary Bailee:
  11. No consent for the bailee’s possession.
  12. Bailee does not need to take affirmative steps to protect property.
  13. Only slight care.
  14. Cowen v. Pressprich – where bond was thrust upon Pressprich’s agent, and he tried to give it up on immediately finding it to be the wrong bond.

6)  DUTY TO REDELIVER:

  1. Strict liability for all bailments if not redelivered except:
  2. Involuntary bailments
  3. Only if bailee was negligent in deliving the goods to the wrong person.
  4. Cowen v. Pressprich – No negligence in redelivering the bond to a wrong agent.
  5. Honest belief he was handing it back to the right messenger.
  6. Therefore, no liability.

7)  PARKING LOT CASES:

  1. Allen v. Hyatt Regency:
  2. B/c hotel parking garage had sole control over the car.
  3. D created expectation in P that Hotel had accepted a duty of reasonable care.
  4. There were attendants and security cameras, etc.
  5. NOT LIABLE FOR OBJECTS WITHIN CARS.
  6. Swarth v. Barney’s Clothes – P cannot recover for a wallet stolen out of a car parked in a parking garage.
  7. “Acceptance is absent when the property is not such as is usually and customarily left with custodian.”

8)  Contractual Limitations:

  1. Liability given up only with consent of bailor.
  2. Must be shown that bailor was, or should have been, aware of sign limiting liability.
  3. Allen v. Hyatt Regency – No assent by bailor in regards to the thing on the back of the ticket.

GIFTS:

1)  ELEMENTS: Three requirements for a gift of chattel

  1. Donor must intend to make a gift.
  2. Donor must deliver the chattel to donee.
  3. Donee must accept the chattel.

2)  GIFTS INTER VIVOS:

  1. Once made is irrevocable.
  2. INTENT:
  3. Must intend to pass title presently, not merely transfer possession.
  4. DELIVERY:
  5. WHY?
  6. Ritual – impresses grantor with legal significance and finality of act.
  7. Evidentiary – Objective evidence of the grantor’s intent to give.
  8. Protective – Protects unwary donor from making idiot statements.
  9. Oral Promises not allowed…
  10. Irons v. SMallpiece – Father’s verbal promise to give colts to son is not held to be a valid gift since no present transfer of possession.
  11. Alternative Methods:
  12. Constructive – Where manual delivery is impracticable.
  13. Transfer of the MEANS of obtaining possession of something.
  14. Transfer of key to a locked receptacle.
  15. Symbolic – Where manual delivery is impracticable.
  16. Transfer something symbolic of thing given.
  17. Draw a picture of something and hand it over.
  18. Letters:
  19. Gruen v. Gruen – What was gifted was the remainder interest in the painting after the death of Gruen.
  20. Title with no right to possession.
  21. Illogical for delivery of painting itself when intent is to keep possession and only transfer title, which is what letters are for.
  22. Via Third-party
  23. Donor can deliver chattel to a 3rd party as agent to hold for the donee.
  24. If agent of donor, no gift takes place until donee receives physical possession of the chattel.
  25. ACCEPTANCE:
  26. Gruen v. Gruen – When something is of value to donee, law will presume acceptance on his part.

3)  Gifts Causa Mortis

  1. Gift made in contemplation of immediately approaching death.
  2. Revoked if the donor recovers from illness that prompted gift. Intent as such as well!
  3. “If something happens to me, this book is yours.” à Revocable!

SALES AND BONA FIDE PURCHASES

GENERAL RULE: No person may sell or transfer a better title to a chattel than she has.

1)  EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE:

  1. Voidable Title:
  2. U.S.C. section 2-403(1): “A person with voidable title has power to transfer a good title to a good faith purchaser for value.”

1.  PURCHASER ELEMENTS:

a.  Good faith purchaser - good faith belief that seller has title.

b.  Pays valuable consideration.

c.  IF NEITHER, NOT PROTECTED BY LAW!

  1. Owner intends to pass title, but can void the transaction b/c of fraud, misrepresentation or duress.
  2. Midway Auto Sales – Originally owner INTENDED to transfer title to other, even though the check was bad, so he could have voided the title upon learning that fact.
  3. If intention was for title to be transferred at the point where the check was cashed, then it can be argued that the buyer could not pass any more title than he had!
  4. RATIONALE: Where one of two innocent persons must suffer by the fraud of another, the one who could have prevented the harm to the other should suffer the loss.
  5. Estoppel:
  6. Owner of goods
  7. Expressly OR impliedly represents
  8. That possessor is the owner or is authorized to pass title.
  9. AND induces reliance by the purchaser.
  10. Owner is estopped to deny the truth of the representation.
  11. Entrusting Goods to Merchants:
  12. Common Law - Mere delivery of goods to merchants not enough; owner must do more such as stand by while goods are displayed; or clothe merchant with apparent authority.
  13. UCC: Power to transfer goods given when chattel is given to merchant:
  14. Chattel entrusted to merchant.

2.  Who deals in goods of that kind.