Pierson v. Post
Doctrine Established:Rule of Capture
Why is Pierson v. Post significant?
Pierson v. Post is the foundational case on the acquisition of property rights in wild animals (ferae naturae). It established that mere pursuit of a wild animal does not create a property right; actual capture or mortal wounding is required. The case remains the starting point for virtually every Property law course in American legal education.
Why This Case Matters
Pierson v. Post is the foundational case on the acquisition of property rights in wild animals (ferae naturae). It established that mere pursuit of a wild animal does not create a property right; actual capture or mortal wounding is required. The case remains the starting point for virtually every Property law course in American legal education.
Facts
Post was hunting a fox on wild, uninhabited land, actively pursuing it with his hounds. Pierson, knowing that Post was in pursuit, intercepted and killed the fox, taking it for himself. Post sued Pierson in trespass, claiming that his pursuit of the fox gave him a superior right to the animal. The trial court ruled in favor of Post, and Pierson appealed.
Procedural History
The trial court found for Post. Pierson appealed to the Supreme Court of New York, which reversed the lower court's judgment.
Issue
Whether mere pursuit of a wild animal on unowned land is sufficient to establish a property right in the animal, or whether actual capture or mortal wounding is required.
Holding
The court held that mere pursuit of a wild animal, even with a reasonable prospect of capture, does not vest property rights in the pursuer. Only actual physical possession through capture, mortal wounding, or trapping such that escape is certain to be prevented can establish ownership of a wild animal.
Reasoning & Analysis
Writing for the majority, Justice Tompkins relied heavily on authorities from Roman law and natural law treatises, particularly Justinian's Institutes and Puffendorf. The court reasoned that adopting a rule requiring actual capture provided certainty and ease of administration, as opposed to the vague and contentious standard of 'reasonable prospect of capture.' The court emphasized that clear rules of possession reduce disputes and litigation. The majority concluded that occupancy, meaning actual corporeal possession, was the only workable standard for acquiring property rights in wild animals. The court was concerned that a pursuit-based rule would lead to endless quarrels among hunters.
Dissent
Justice Livingston dissented, arguing that the case should have been submitted to a panel of experienced hunters rather than decided by reference to ancient legal authorities. He contended that a rule granting rights to the pursuer with a reasonable prospect of capture would better incentivize the socially useful activity of fox hunting and discourage the kind of unsportsmanlike interception Pierson engaged in.
Key Quotes
“Pursuit alone vests no property or right in the huntsman; and that even pursuit, with wounding, is equally ineffectual for that purpose, unless the animal be actually taken.”
“Property in animals ferae naturae may be acquired without bodily touch or manucaption, provided the pursuer be within reach, or have a reasonable prospect of taking, what he has thus discovered with an intention of converting to his own use.”
“However uncourteous or unkind the conduct of Pierson towards Post, in this instance, may have been, yet his act was productive of no injury or damage for which a legal remedy can be applied.”
Legacy & Impact
Pierson v. Post established the foundational principle that possession, not mere pursuit, is the basis for property rights in unowned resources. The case has been applied broadly beyond wild animals to natural resources such as oil, gas, water, and even broadcast signals. Its emphasis on clear rules versus flexible standards continues to influence property law and jurisprudence.
Exam Relevance
Pierson v. Post frequently appears on Property exams in questions involving the acquisition of unowned resources, competing claims to wild animals or natural resources, and policy debates about clear rules versus flexible standards. Students should be prepared to apply the capture rule and discuss the Livingston dissent's competing rationale favoring a reasonable-prospect-of-capture test.
Study Tips
- 1Focus on the policy debate between the majority's bright-line rule (actual capture) and the dissent's flexible standard (reasonable prospect of capture).
- 2Understand how this case connects to broader themes of first possession and the labor theory of property.
- 3Be prepared to apply the rule to modern analogues such as oil and gas, water rights, and intellectual property.
- 4Remember that the fox was on unowned land, which is critical to the analysis — the result might differ on owned property.
Related Cases
21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823) (1823) — Deep-dive analysis
1 Strange 505, 93 Eng. Rep. 664 (K.B. 1722) (1722) — Deep-dive analysis
58 N.J. 297, 277 A.2d 369 (1971) (1971) — Deep-dive analysis
545 U.S. 469 (2005) (2005) — Deep-dive analysis