Pierson v. Post case brief

Pierson v. Post

FACTS
-Plaintiff was hunting a fox on an uninhabited beach when the defendant killed the fox and
carried it off, knowing that the other was hunting.
-Court found for the defendant because pursuit is not sufficient to entail possession; mortal
wounding or capturing in a trap might be because entails deprivation of liberty and bringing
the animal under certain control
-Some indications in the case that if great amounts of labor had been invested, that might
have been sufficient.

ANALYSIS
-Justification for majority opinion (bright-line rule):
(a) Provides greater certainty and decreases administrative costs/number of disputes – does
not require an evaluation of whether there was a reasonable prospect of success.
(b) Facilitates trade – if it’s clear who owns what, it is not necessary to conduct an
investigation before purchase
(c) Provides notice as to who has a claim – may provide a consent based justification for
who has a property right (Rose).
(d) Served public policy end of killing foxes - provides incentives to develop better
technology b/c do not own the animal unless you kill it.

Disadvantages of bright-line rules:
(a) Inflexible – does not allow for adjustments based on circumstances – might decrease
trade
(b) Might lead to unjust results that undermine respect for the legal system


(a) Should recognize a property right if pursuer has a reasonable chance of success.
(b) Overriding policy concern should be decreasing the number of foxes and encouraging

investment in hunting (is this true?)

(c) Should have examined industry custom.