http:www.lawschool.westlaw.

co
m
 Pierson v. Post

 Action of trespass on the case

 Post, with dogs and hounds, chases a fox on a
beach.
 While hunting the fox, Pierson, knowing Post was
hunting the fox, shoots and kills the fox
 Post sues Pierson
 Verdict for Post
 Pierson seeks writ of certiorari
Can you identify Pierson and
Post?
Tally Ho! The Breakfast Toast
 Popov v. Hayashi

 What are the facts of this case?

 What do you learn from the opinion about the
meaning of the word “possession?”
 How is this case factually distinguishable from
Pierson v. Post
 How would the court in Pierson v. Post likely
have decided this case?
 What is the nature of Popov’s interest in the ball?
 What are the consequences of his having that
interest?

 The Law of Finders

 A finder has good title against all the world but

the true owner
Armory v. Delamarie

 Is this true, consider the next case

 Favorite v. Miller

 Miller without permission entered on to Favorite’s

land and found the head from the statue of George
III
 Miller agreed to sell the head to the Museum of the
City of New York, which is withholding the
purchase price pending outcome of this suit
 Favorite claims title to the property as owner of the
locus in quo
 Favorite v. Miller

 At common law, how might lost property have

been classified?
 Lost
 Mislaid
 Abandoned
 Treasure Trove

 How are each of these distinguished?

 What criteria is used to determine into which of
these categories the found property fits?
 Intent of the person who lost it.
 Favorite v. Miller

 How is the property in this case classified?

 If classified as lost, shouldn’t the finder win?
 Public land

 Private land

 Not reward a trespasser

 Benjamin v. Lindner Aviation, Inc.

 What are the facts of this case?

 How is this case different from the other cases we
have discussed?
 Should that difference make a difference?
 What about the court’s argument regarding the
legislature’s intent?
 Can mislaid property ever become “abandoned
property?”
Pate 67, Problem 2
 White v. Samsung Electronics America,
Inc.
 What are the facts?
 Here again we have
multiple opinions in
the same case. From
what courts are they
coming?
 How do the judges
differ?
 Davis v. Davis

 What are the facts of this case?

 What are the parties’ real concerns?
 Are embryos persons or property?
 What does the court hold?
 Should the parties be able to contract to an “agreed
upon” result?
 Should the non-consenting biological parent be
liable for child support?
 Property in Body Parts

 To what extent would deposited sperm

or eggs remain the property of the
depositor?
 To what extent do you have a “property
right” in your organs?
 To what extent do you (or another)
have a property right in your body?
 Gift Law Principles

 Intent
 Delivery
 Actual
 Symbolic (Letter etc.)
 Constructive (keys)
 To Donee
 To Third party
 As agent
 As trustee

 Acceptance (Presumed)
 Gruen v. Gruen

 What are the facts of this case?

 What was the precise nature of the gift?
 What were the lawyers concerns?
 How did the lawyer purport to resolve those
concerns?
 Albinger v. Harris

 What are the facts of this case?

 What arguments do the parties make regarding their
conflicting claims?
 What does the court hold?
 Is the dissent correct?
 Does the holding comport with the common
understanding of engaged persons?
 Foster v. Reiss

 What are the facts of this case?

 Does the majority dispute intent, delivery or acceptance?
 What about the minority?
 Where is the point of departure?
 The facts indicate that before wife died husband actually
took possession of the subjects of the gift. How do the
majority and minority utilize that fact?
 Would the dissent collapse if husband had never taken
possession of the subjects of the gift before the wife died?
 Colavito v. New York Organ Donor Network, Inc.

 What are the facts of this case?

 Under the common law, would plaintiff have a
property right in the donated kidneys?
 What explains the common law?
 Did NY statutory law give plaintiff any right to the
organ?
 Suppose the kidney could have been used by the
plaintiff. Same result?
 Increasing Supply of Organs

 Presumed consent
 Conscription
 Mandated choice
 Sales