The court held that Post did not acquire property rights in the fox through mere pursuit. Pierson, who actually killed and captured the fox, acquired ownership. Post's pursuit alone was insufficient to establish a property claim.
Source: Pierson v. Post, 3 Cai. R. 175, 2 Am. Dec. 264 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1805)
Pierson v. Post (1805) is the quintessential first-year property law case, introducing students to fundamental concepts of property acquisition and the rule of capture. This New York Supreme Court decision established the principle that mere pursuit of wild animals does not create property rights - actual capture or mortal wounding with continued pursuit is required.
Pierson v. Post, 3 Cai. R. 175, 2 Am. Dec. 264 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1805)
Post was hunting a fox on a beach on Long Island with his hounds and was in hot pursuit when Pierson, knowing that Post was chasing the fox, killed and captured it. Post sued Pierson for trespass, claiming that his pursuit of the fox gave him a property right in the animal. The fox was wild and unowned (ferae naturae) before the incident.
Does a person acquire property rights in a wild animal by pursuing it with the intent to capture it, or is actual capture required to establish ownership?
Property rights in wild animals (ferae naturae) are acquired only through actual capture or mortal wounding followed by continued pursuit. Mere pursuit, even with intent to capture, does not establish property rights. The rule of capture requires either physical possession or circumstances that make capture inevitable.
The court held that Post did not acquire property rights in the fox through mere pursuit. Pierson, who actually killed and captured the fox, acquired ownership. Post's pursuit alone was insufficient to establish a property claim.
The majority, citing ancient authorities like Justinian's Institutes and Pufendorf, reasoned that clear rules are necessary to prevent disputes over wild animals. Requiring actual capture provides certainty and prevents endless litigation over who was "closest" to capturing an animal. The court noted that allowing mere pursuit to establish ownership would create too much uncertainty and conflict.
This case established the fundamental rule of capture in property law and demonstrates how legal systems create clear rules for acquiring property rights in unowned resources. The principle extends beyond hunting to oil, gas, water, and other natural resources. It illustrates the tension between rewarding effort and providing legal certainty.
Pierson v. Post establishes the foundational rule of capture, teaching students how property rights are acquired in previously unowned resources. It's the classic introduction to property law concepts and demonstrates the importance of clear legal rules.
The rule of capture states that property rights in wild animals are acquired only through actual capture, killing, or mortal wounding with continued pursuit. Mere pursuit or intent to capture is insufficient to establish ownership.
The rule of capture extends to other natural resources like oil, gas, groundwater, and minerals. The principle helps determine when someone acquires property rights in previously unowned or fugitive resources.
Judge Livingston's dissent argued that Post's hot pursuit should establish property rights, emphasizing local hunting customs and the unfairness of allowing Pierson to benefit from interfering with Post's hunt.
Pierson v. Post remains the classic introduction to property law, teaching fundamental concepts about how property rights are acquired and the importance of clear legal rules. The case demonstrates the balance between rewarding effort and providing legal certainty in property acquisition.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →