whether you eat or drink or whatever you do,

do it all for the glory of God. (1Corinthians 31)

21week 1
pp.3-18

Johnson v. M’Intosh
21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543
FACT  M’Intosh (D) acquired title to land under grant from the US (Land patent -
conveyance).
Johnson (P) acquired title to the same land by purchasing and conveying
from the Indians, the first in 1773, and the last in 1755.
Indians who sold and conveyed the land to P were in rightful possession of
the land.
PROCEDURAL P sues D for ejectment (to quiet title). D wins in trial court.
HISTORY 
JUDGMENT  The district court decision was affirmed (D wins/ Land patent – grant
prevails)
ISSUE  Whether or not Indians have authority to convey the title to the P?
Who has authority to convey the land? Indian or US?
RULE  If you discover new territory and there’s no previous owner of the
territory, you have title to the land. Or through conquest, you can have
ownership of land.
HOLDING  Indians have no power to convey to affect the title of the US.
* US government has superior title.
RATIONALE   discovery gave an exclusive right to extinguish the Indian title of
occupancy, either by purchase or by conquest.
 The title by conquest is acquired and maintained by force. The
conqueror prescribes its limits. Humanity, however, acting on public
opinion, has established, as a general rule, that the conquered shall not
be wantonly oppressed, and that their condition shall remain as eligible
as is compatible with the objects of the conquest.
 The indicant inhabitants are to be considered merely as occupants, to
be protected in the possession of their lands, but to be deemed
incapable of transferring the absolute title to others. 9p

If the Indians were there first, why didn’t they have ownership?
- Distinction is being made between occupancy and ownership. Just
because you merely occupy a piece of land doesn’t mean you own it.
- The US government acquired the ownership from the European powers
by (1) discovery + (2)conquest.
(1) Discovery
If you discover new territory and there’s no previous owner of the territory,
you have title to the land. (You have ownership).
Then, how could one justify discovery if there were ppl already living in the
land?
One must form a state in order to maintain ownership but Indians are NOT
a state (merely a group of people). Therefore, they are not entitled to
ownership.
*Terra nullius (owned by no one)
 whether you eat or drink or whatever you do,
do it all for the glory of God. (1Corinthians 31)
(2) Conquest
Possible way for a nation to achieve territory. A legitimate form of
acquisition.
 whether you eat or drink or whatever you do,
do it all for the glory of God. (1Corinthians 31)
1week 2
pp. 18-23

Pierson v. Post
3 Cai. R. 175, 2 Am. Dec 264
FACT  Post(P), hunter, his dogs and hounds to chase and pursue a fox which was
wild animal on the ground of no owner. However, Pierson(D) kill and carry
off the fox in the sight of Post.
PROCEDURAL P sued D, and lower court made a verdict for the P.
HISTORY  D sued out a certiorari and assigned for error.
Certiorari: a type of writ. A writ of certiorari orders a lower court to deliver
its record in a case so that the higher court may review it.
JUDGMENT  Reversed
ISSUE  Whether Post by the pursuit with his hounds in the manner acquired a
right to the fox against Pierson who killed and took the fox/
What acts amounts to occupancy, applied to acquiring right to wild
animals?
RULE 
HOLDING  Post doesn’t have any legal right to the fox, and the fox became the property
of Pierson, who intercepted and killed it.
RATIONALE  - The actual bodily seizure is not indispensable to acquire right to, or
possession of, wild beasts; but that, on the contrary, the mortal
wounding of such beasts, by one not abandoning his pursuit, may, with
the utmost propriety, be deemed possession of him; since, thereby, the
pursuer manifests an unequivocal intention of appropriating the animal
to his individual use, has deprived him of his natural liberty, and
brought him within his certain control.
- So also, encompassing and securing such animals with nets and toils, or
otherwise intercepting them in such a manner as to deprive them of
their natural liberty, and render escape impossible, may justly be
deemed to give possession of them to those persons who, by their
industry and labor, have used such means of apprehending them. 20p
- If the first seeing, starting, or pursuing such animals, without having so
wounded, circumvented or ensnared them, so as to deprive them of
their natural liberty, and subject them to the control of their pursuer,
should afford the basis of actions against others for intercepting and
killing them, it would prove a fertile source of quarrels and litigati on.
ferae naturae: wild animal
CONCURRING/  Mere chasing should be enough to acquire the fox. If the court follow
DISSENTING  this rule, then it will be helpful to encourage the destruction of foxes. If
the court follow the majority opinion, then no one wants to keep a pack
of hounds.

It will lower the probability of capturing the fox. 10 chasing hunter is much more efficient than 1 chasing hunter.
BUT If his rule is accepted, then if one hunter saw the other huunter is chasing earlier, the he will not try more for
the fox.
 whether you eat or drink or whatever you do,
do it all for the glory of God. (1Corinthians 31)
1week 2
pp.26-29

Ghen v. Rich
8 F. 159
FACT  - In Provincetown, there was a custom that when a person find a whale
which was hunted by fisherman on the beach, then the finder sends
word to Provincetown, and the owner comes. The finder receives small
salvage for his services.
- Libellant (Ghen) has been engaged in whale business for ten years.
- April 9, 1880, in Massachusetts bay, Libellant shot and instantly killed
with a bomb-lance the whale.
- It sunk immediately, and on the morning of the 12th was found
stranded on the beach in Brewster and was found by Ellis.
- Ellis advertised the whale for sale at auction and sold it to the
respondent, who shipped off the blubber and tried out the oil instead of
following the custom.
- Neither the respondent nor Ellis knew the whale had been killed by the
libellant, but they knew or might have known, if they had wished, that it
had been shot and killed with a bomb-lance, by some person engaged in
this species of business.
PROCEDURAL P sues D to recover the value of a fin-back whale.
HISTORY 
JUDGMENT  P wins. Decree for libellant for $71.05.
ISSUE  How can we determine who has ownership (whaler or finder)
RULE 
HOLDING  - When a whale has been killed, and is anchored and left with marks of
appropriation, it is the property of the captors; and if it is afterwards
found, still anchored, by another ship, there is no usage or principle of
law by which the property of the original captors is diverted, even
though the whale may have dragged from its anchorage. 27p
- Although local usages of a particular port ought not to be allowed to set
aside the general maritime law, when the custom had been concurred
for a long time by everyone engaged in the business trade then the
custom is accepted. 28p
RATIONALE  - (Bourne v. Ashley) Although local usages of a particular port should not
negate the general maritime law, the objection did not apply to a
custom which embraced an entire business & had been agreed by
everyone engaged in the trade for a long time.
- In Swift v. Gifford, it was decided that a custom among whalemen in the
Arctic seas, that the iron holds the whale, was reasonable and valid. The
custom in our case(usage on Cape Cod) is as reasonable as the custom
in Swift v. Gifford
- A custom recognized and acquiesced in for many yrs
- Necessary to the survival of the industry (Economic interests) No
person would engage in the trade if his investment in labor and time
cannot be reasonably guaranteed (if judges don’t acknowledge custom,
 whether you eat or drink or whatever you do,
do it all for the glory of God. (1Corinthians 31)
it would disincentivize captors)
If the fisherman does all that is possible to do to make the animal his
own, that would seem to be sufficient.
DICTA 
CONCURRING/ 
DISSENTING 
 whether you eat or drink or whatever you do,
do it all for the glory of God. (1Corinthians 31)
1week 2
pp.30-32

Keeble v. Hickeringill
FACT  P possessed a decoy pond and P pay cost to prepare and procured decit
ducks, nets, machines and other engines for taking of the wildfowl.
D discharged 6 guns with gunpowder, and he made the wildfowl is driven
away because of the noise and smell of the gunpowder made by D.
The wildfowl were frighted away.
PROCEDURAL P sued D for disturbance of the P’s taking possession of ducks. (Not for
HISTORY  damage for the loss of the fowl). P won in lower court. D appealed
(appellate court)
JUDGMENT  P wins.
ISSUE 
RULE  When men use his skill to take wildfowl to sell and dispose of for his
profit, this is his trade, and he that hinders another in his trade or
livelihood is liable to an action for so hindering him.
HOLDING  D’s activity of gun-firing by the decoy constitutes disturbance of P’s taking
(constructive) possession of the ducks.
*D made interference with trade/business
RATIONALE  Social policy grounds. Social goals. To encourage capturing ducks for the
purpose of feeding the society(to get more ducks)
- If D had set another decoy pond near P’s decoy pond, D would not be
liable even if the consequence turns out to be the same because D pursues
the social goal as well.
DICTA 
CONCURRING/ 
DISSENTING 
 whether you eat or drink or whatever you do,
do it all for the glory of God. (1Corinthians 31)
1week 3
p.126

Armory v. Delamirie
King’s Bench, 1722 1 Strange 505
FACT  A chimney sweeper boy (P) found a jewel and took it to the jewel shop. The
goldsmith returned the jewel but gave him only a socket without the stones
in the jewel at first.
PROCEDURAL P brought trover against the goldsmith to receive the jewel back.
HISTORY 
JUDGMENT  P win.
ISSUE  Does the finder have a superior title more than goldsmith when the finder
is not true owner, but just founder?
RULE  Finder has ownership of property, and it enables him to keep it against
all except the rightful owner.
HOLDING  A chimney boy as a finder of the jewel has a superior title over the jewel
except the true owner of the jewel.
RATIONALE 
CONCURRING/ 
DISSENTING 

 NOTES & QUESTIONS

the ownership of the finder is good as against the whole world but the true owner
Trover: Common law action for money damages resulting from the defendant’s conversion to
his own use of a chattel owned or possessed by the plaintiff.
- Question, what if the true owner appears after the D gave money to the finder?
The wrongdoer, having once paid full damages to the bailee, has an answer to any action by
the bailor.
One who has acquired the possession of property, whether by finding, bailment, or by mere
tort, has a right to retain that possession as against a mere wrongdoer who is a stranger to the
property.
The courts appear to be more reluctant to give the prior possessor of land, who has no title,
permanent damages than to put the prior possessor back into possession.
 whether you eat or drink or whatever you do,
do it all for the glory of God. (1Corinthians 31)
1week 3
pp.129-135

Hannah v. Peel
King’s Bench Division, 1945 K.B. 509
FACT  D was owner of a house, but he was never in occupation. P found brooch in
the house when the house was quartered to soldiers during the war. P
handed the broch to the police, receiving a receipt for it. In august 1942,
owner was not found, and D sold the brooch for 66l. Next month, it became
88l.
PROCEDURAL P issued writ claiming the return of the brooch, or its value, and damages
HISTORY  for its detention.
JUDGMENT  Judgment for plaintiff
ISSUE  When there is a first finder and the homeowner who never stayed in the
house, who has a superior title of a chattel which was found in the house of
the homeowner?
RULE  When a landowner doesn’t manifest intention to exercise control over the
land, the finder has a superior title for the possession of the chattel found
in the land.
HOLDING  The finder has a superior title for the chattel he found even if the chattel
was on the place which is owned by someone.
RATIONALE  P: I have a title against all the world except the true owner.
D: I have a superior title because the brooch was found on my property,
although I was never in occupation.
Bridges v. Hawkesworth
- P found a note in D’s firm. P handed the note to D to advertise to find a
true owner. But three years later, they couldn’t
- find the true owner. So, P asked to D to return the note, and D refused it.
- The court said that the finder of a lost article is entitled to it as against
all persons except the real owner, and it is a rule which is prevail.
- There was no suggestion that the place where the notes were found was
in any way material.
- The notes, being dropped in the public part of the shop, were never in
the custody of the shopkeeper, or ‘within the protection of his house.’
South Staffordshire Water v. Sharman
- D hired by P for cleaning, found two rings when he was cleaning the
mud at the bottom of water owned by P. P requested D to give the ring
after there was no true owner, but D refused to go it.
- The possession of the land carries with it in general, by our law,
possession of every thing which is attached to or under that land, and,
in the absence of a better title elsewhere, the right to possess it also.
And it makes no difference that the possessor is not aware of the
thing’s existence.
- Where a person has possession of house with a manifest intention to
exercise control over it, then the possession of the chattel is in the
 whether you eat or drink or whatever you do,
do it all for the glory of God. (1Corinthians 31)
owner of the place.
Elwes v. Brigg Gas Co.
- A gas company borrowed a land to take mines and minerals, but found
prehistoric boat embedded in the soil.
- The boat belongs to the landowner. The company only had a right about
mines or minerals not boat.
In this case, the D was never physically in possession of these premises at
any time. The broch was never his. He had no knowledge of it, until it was
brought to his notice by the finder.

CONCURRING/ 
DISSENTING 

What is different between the fox case. We have a hypo about a chased fox died on someone’s
property. At that time at first, the landowner has the superior title over the fox more than the
hunter.

NOTES and QUESTIONS

Note 4.
 Wenner case
- Two laborers build a driveway and found gold coin
- Like the dirt the men were excavating, the coin belonged to Wenner as the owner of the
land.
 Benjamin case
- $18,000 found in airplane’s wing.
- It was mislaid property > possessed by the owner of the airplane
 In Re Seizure case
- Money found in the gas tank of a car. The car was seized by the government because it was
used to crime.
- The court held that the money was abandoned, not mislaid. > belongs to the buyer as the
first person to find it.
 whether you eat or drink or whatever you do,
do it all for the glory of God. (1Corinthians 31)
2week 1
pp.135-136

McAvoy v. Medina
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 1866
93 Mass. (11 Allen) 548

FACT  P, a customer of the business location saw and took up a pocketbook which
was lying on a table. P told D, who is the owner of barbershop, to keep it,
and if the owner should come to give it to him; and otherwise, to advertise
it, and D promised to do so. Later, P demanded money.
PROCEDURAL P filed a suit to receive money. In the lower court P lost and verdict was
HISTORY  made for D. P alleged exceptions.
JUDGMENT  Exceptions overruled.
ISSUE  When the true owner put his property on the table of the shop, who has a
superior right on the property? Finder or premise owner?
RULE  Misplaced goods (items intentionally placed by the owner where they were
found and then forgotten or left there) are deemed to be in the property of
the landowner on which they are found for the true owner.
HOLDING  P acquire no original right to the property, but D acquire.
RATIONALE  - The pocketbook was voluntarily placed upon a table in the D’s shop by a
customer of his accidentally left the same there and has never called for
it.
- The plaintiff did not by this acquire the right to take the property from
the shop, but it was rather the duty of the defendant, when the fact
became thus known to him, to use reasonable care for the safe keeping
of the same until the owner should call for it.
CONCURRING/ 
DISSENTING