I. First Possession p. 1
A. By Capture pp. 17 - 23
pp. 27 – 32
· Pierson v. Post
o Post pursuing a fox on uninhabited lands when he was intercepted by Pierson, who knowing Post was in pursuit, killed the animal first and possessed it
o Rule: Ownership of wild animals established by capture
o Mortally wounding an animal is enough to constitute capture
§ Called rule of constructive possession
o A property right can be acquired only if the hunter occupies it
· Keeble v. Hickeringill
o P owner of decoy pond to capture ducks, D fired gun on his own land to scare ducks and prevent P from capture
o Rule: A person may not maliciously prevent another from capturing wild animals in the pursuit of his trade
o Ct held for P because P’s business on his land was lawful, prohibited interference with pursuit when intermeddler not attempting to capture
o Ratione soli-ownership of wild animal bc presence on claimant’s land
§ Discourages trespassing
§ Constructive possession
· Landowners are regarded as the prior possessors of any animals ferae naturae on their land, until the animals take off
o First in time- Principle that he who first takes possession to unclaimed property takes title
· Animus revertendi
o Wild animals are free for capture if they escape unless they have developed an animus revertendi- habit of returning- in which case they are treated as domestic animals
· Pets- domestic animals relationship with owners doesn’t end if escape and doesn’t create new property rights to finder
B. By Creation
1. Property in One’s Persona pp. 69 – 81
· No property rights in human bodies
· Moore v. Regents of the Univ. of CA
o D removed P’s spleen and retained it for research. As a result of research, D established a cell line from Moore’s cells and obtained a patent for it
o Rule: A doctor has a duty to disclose the extent fo his research and economic interests in a patient’s body parts. Human body parts are not property such that may be converted
o Moore no property claim to his cells but dr breached fiduciary duty to him by not disclosing intent of cells
§ Moore had no interest because no case law that says person retains prop interest in human organs, CA statute limits patient’s control over excised body parts,
o Bundle of rights- right to use, possesses, exclude and transfer/sell. In this case discussion on who has right to sell or gift the spleen or body parts in general
· Right to Include/Right to Exclude
o Jacque v. Steenberg Homes
§ Landowner sought punitive damages after a developer delivered a mobile home across the landowner’s property without permission
§ Rule: Punitive damages may be imposed for intentional trespass to property
§ Individual landowner has strong interest in protecting his land from trespass
§ Has right to exclude and exclusively enjoy property without invading rights of another
§ Nominal damage wouldn’t deter trespasser
§ Private landowners should feel confident that wrongdoers will be punished and less likely to resort to self help remedies
o State v. Shack
§ D entered Tedesco’s property to give legal aid to a migrant farmworker. D refused to depart upon Tedesco’s demand and is prosecuted for trespass
§ Rule: Property rights may not be exercised so as to endanger the well being of others
§ First amendment allows D to enter property to distribute information
§ State law bars Tedesco from using land to endanger wellbeing of others, that there is a public policy of aiding migrant farm workers who are poor and disenfranchised
§ Right to exclude must yield to society’s desire to aid, since delivering legal/social services, no tres
2. Introduction to Intellectual Property pp. 51 – 56
· Competition favorable but common law had protects against unfair methods of competition: (1) prohibiting the deception of customers as the origin of products (2) prohibiting improper means of obtaining information
· International News Service v. Associated Press
o INS copied news that Assoc. Press gathered
o Rule: Where a company has expended resources in creating news and information, the creator can exclude others from copying it until its commercial value as news has passed away
o Misappropriation
o P invested time and resources in the creation of news, it can prevent others from copying it until its commercial value as news has passed away
· Cheney Brothers v. Doris Silk Corp.
o D copied a fashion design from P. All such designs have a short life
o Rule: Unless the common law or the patent or copyright statutes give protection from appropriation, a person’s property interest is limited to the chattels which embody his creations
o Permissible to copy designs and distinguished from INS on the ground that recognition of an unfair competition claim in the context of news-gathering would not create a monopoly in the production of news but that a law prohibiting any imitation of a good would set up an impermissible monopoly
o Ideas cannot be protected by common law or copy law
· Smith v. Chanel
o Ct held perfume company could claim in ads that its product was the equivalent of pricey Chanel No.5
o Perfume is unpatented, so right to copy it
§ For the life blood of competition
§ A large expenditure of money doesn’t create legally protectable right, can’t monopolize the public’s desire for unpatented product
o Important public interest by offering comparable goods at lower prices
II. Subsequent Possession
A. By Find pp. 95 – 112
· Owners who lose their personal property retain their ownership rights unless they intentionally relinquish them
· Finders has superior right to possess lost objects in preference to everyone but the true owner, but they must hand them over to true owner if demanded
o Lost property finder merely acquires the right to possess it
· If personal property intentionally abandoned by original owner, then the one who finds becomes owner
o Abandoned only when owner intends to relinquish ownership and engages in some type of action to demonstrate that intent
o Finder becomes owner
· Armory v. Delamirie
o Armory found a jewel and took it to D’s jewelry shop. D refused to return the jewel
o The finder of lost property has a title superior to all but the true owner
§ Prior possessor rule
· Protects owner who can’t prove true owner
· Protects individuals who entrust goods to others
· Protects the expectations of prior possessors who expect to prevail
· Promotes peaceable possession and discourages stealing
o Finder of prop doesn’t acquire an absolute title, true owner has this
o Trover- a suit to recover the value of the plaintiff’s chattel that D has converted… P waives right to return of the chattel and insists that D be subjected to a forced purchase…have to pay the price of a jewel of the finest water if D didn’t produce jewel and prove it wasn’t finest
o Question of who has the better title….relative
· Trespassing finder
o Landowner would prevail against trespasser, split between trespassing finder and subsequent possessor of the object
o CL- Grant finder rights against subsequent possessors
o MT- deny possessory rights to those who obtained possession illegally
· Finder v. landowner- Cts divided…However, a chattel found in a private place, one not generally open to the public may be granted to owner of land rather than the finder
· Hannah v. Peel
o Awarded brooch to the finder rather than the landowner when landowner was not physically occupying the property and the finder turned the brooch over to the police in order to make it available for recovery by the true owner
o Did because conduct commendable and meritorious and because landowner never been in physical possession
o Bridges v. Hawksworth
§ Bag of money left in a shop in an area accessible to general public
§ Superior right went to finder because shop owner never possessed the bag and found in area open to public- CL
o South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman
§ Servant found 2 rings on landowner’s land while working for landowner. Superior title goes to the landowner- MT- Finder worked for landowner and by employing servant, the landowner exercising control over the part of land where rings found
o Elwes v. Briggs Gas Co.
§ Prehistoric boat found in land leased by D
§ Boat belonged to lessor
§ Discourages employees from reporting lost article
o Rules from cases:
§ 1. landowner possesses everything attached to or under his land
· discourages trespassers from coming onto land in search of treasure
§ 2. landowner doesn’t necessarily possess which is unattached to his land
o Brooch not attached to land…chooses to follow Bridges case
o Rewarding Hannah for meritorious conduct
· McAvoy v. Medina
o A customer of the shop placed his wallet on the counter, but neglected to remove it. P found the walled
o Rule: A finder has no title to property that is mislaid
o When property mislaid, not lost, the shop owner has duty to safeguard the property until true owner returns…finder never gains title to mislaid property
o Bridges v. Hawkes is distinguishable because property not voluntarily placed somewhere and forgotten, reather there just lost
o Promotes goal of property law to return lost property to true owner because true owner will likely retrace his steps and return to shop, so more efficiently return mislaid property to true owner
o Hard to decide if lost/mislaid and individuals retrace steps for both
· Treasure Trove
o English common law – belonged to the king…if treasure hidden with intent to reclaim then went to king, abandoned went to finder
o American law- treated as other found property as either lost, mislaid, or abandoned…usually gives to finder as long as not trespassing
§ Rejects law of treasure trove- unsuitable for modern
§ Finders working for someone, that someone gets
o Benjamin
§ Money found in wing of old airplane by inspector
§ Money hadn’t been lost, found mislaid property, possessed by the owner of the plane
§ Not concealed long enough to be a treasure trove and not abandoned bc ppl don’t abandon that much money
o In re Seizure
§ Money found in gas tank of car, which had been seized by government because used to transport drugs, sold to buyer
§ Mechanic hired to fix fuel problem found cash and informed the Agency, which claimed right against buyer
§ Ct found for buyer as the first person to find the money, mechanic buyer’s agent
o Terry
§ Box of money hidden in a ceiling discovered by contractors working on a motel
§ Possession awarded to motel owner for reasons of Benj.
o Ships lost in territorial waters
§ US and individual states asserted clams to shipwrecks embedded and constructively possessed
§ If abandoned, finder entitled to possession of recovered goods but not title; finder entitled to a reward for saving the goods under the law of salvage
· Bond’s record setting home run ball
o At time ball hit, was abandoned property (previously mlb’s) and first person who cam in possession of ball became its new owner
o First guy had significant but incomplete control and disrupted by wrongful acts, which D wasn’t a part of….
o Both men have superior claim to ball against rest of world
o Applied equitable division
B. By Adverse Possession p. 112
1. Theory and Elements pp. 112 – 136
· Theory
o Method of transferring interests in land without the consent of the prior owner, even in spite of the dissent of such owners
o Rests on social judgments that there should be a restricted duration of assertion of aging claims and passage of reasonable time period should assure security to a person claiming to be an owner
o Adverse possessor may acquire title at such time as an action of ejectment by the record owner would be barred by statute of limitations
o Policy conclusion that the property in question should belong to the longstanding possessor and that the record title holder should no longer be legally entitled to retain her ownership rights
o When a non-owner occupies property owned by another, the owner is entitled to bring an action in ejectment to recover possession. If the owner waits too long, the statute will run, depriving the owner of the legal right to sue to recover the land from the wrongful possessor
o Once the statute of limitations runs out and the title holder has lost the right to eject, no one has a superior right to possess the property than the adverse possessor, converting the adv. Pos to the rightful title holder
o Adverse possessor has the right to exclude everyone but the true owner
o Possession is 9/10 of the law….don’t carry around written documentation of our ownership
· Elements
o Actual possession
§ possessor must physically occupy the premises in some manner
§ must treat the property as if she owns it
§ ordinary use to which the land is capable and such as an owner would make of it
§ easiest way to demonstrate is to build a fence around the land and use it in a visible manner
· will usually get all inside fence
§ In the absence of a fence, the extent of area acquired is determined by the extent of the occupation and use
· So could potentially only get half used
§ Boundary disputes: AP or prescriptive easements
· Result will depend on extend of his use of a strip of land and whether his actions could reasonably have been interpreted as asserting general powers over the strip
§ Uses of the land made of the land need only be typical of the uses made by other owners of like land in the area
o Open and notorious
§ Must be sufficiently visible and obvious to put a reasonable owner on notice that her property is being occupied by a non-owner with the intent of claiming possessory rights