Pierson v. Post

Pierson v. Post
Deciding Court: Supreme Court of New York
Parties: Pierson v. Post
Procedural History: Appellate Court ruled in favor of Post
Facts: Post was in pursuit of a fox on a beach with his dogs and hound. Pierson having well known the fox was being chased by Post and his hounds, caught up to the fox, caught it, killed it, and carried it off.
Post is defendant even though he was the one in original pursuit. Post first sued Pierson but Pierson appealed when the court ruled in Post’s favor.
Issue: Did the pursuit of the fox by Post and his hounds give Post right to property of the fox?
Rule: Lots of legal scholars are referenced with Puffendorf being the one the majority opinion rests on. He says that mere pursuit of an animal does not give one possession of said animal unless the animal be actually taken. He defines occupancy of beasts to be the actual corporal possession of them.
‘First to kill and capture’ is the law of the land because killing and capturing a beast is to take its natural liberty away and therefore give the killer and capturer possession over it.
The Court looks at the issue by saying that since fox was a ‘beast’ you have to actually physically possess it to own it – Whoever physically takes the fox is the owner.
They look to past scholars and ruling to come up with this.
Either have to physically have the beast in your hand or you have to mortally wound the beast, pursuit alone is not enough.

Analysis: Since Post was only able to show pursuit of the animal and did not show that he was the first to mortally wound it, he has no right over said animal because Pierson is the one who first killed and captured the fox.
In order to preserve the peace and order in society, they have to go with this ruling.
Court rules and defines in this way because of policy reasons. If pursuit alone was grounds for possession there would be constant litigation and arguments. The ruling created certainty regarding other litigation.
Anyone could then say oh I was pursuing this beast, I have rights over it.

Holding: Judgment of lower court was erroneous, judgment reversed in favor of defendant (Pierson).

Dissent: The legal scholarly opinions cited are of an antiquated time – the pursuit of animals back them was only for the preservation of Roman poultry. The law should change with the times. Rests on the opinion of Barbeyrae who said that if an animal be followed with large dogs and hounds, the animal should belong to the hunter not to the chance occupant. But, if the animal were to be badly wounded with a weapon and only chased by beagles then the animal should belong to the captor, not the first pursuer.
Refers to common law – it is the common law to hunt fox and other annoying beasts and that gives your rights over the animal.
Policy is we want to fill foxes. If you don’t give people ownership rights after they pursue them then they won’t pursue them.