Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
57 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
1. Young v. Hichens
|
2. man splashing around net and preventing other guy from taking fish. Prevention of possession is not trespass. Must have control over the fish. (Y Hitch the fish??)
|
|
|
3. Ohio v. Shaw
|
4. man captures fish in net that has possibility of escape. Pound net with aperture. However most didn’t escape through there. Owner need not have ABSOLUTE impossibility of escape, control exists if reasonable precautions against escape, so that it is practically impossible. That it can be taken at any time by the owner.
|
|
|
5. Liesner v. Wane
|
6. man mortally wound deer, when trying to go get it, someone else finishes it off and takes it. The instant a wild animal is brought under control so possession is actually inevitable, a vested property interest accrues and can not be divested by another killing it. So crippled it cannot escape -> deprived of NATURAL LIBERTY.
|
|
|
7. Sollers v. Sollers
|
8. fisherman caught fish, put them into an inlets secured by a net at one side. Fish had to be fished out, could not just net them and take them away. Only Solers would be stupid enough to keep fish in a bay.
|
|
|
9. Dapson v. Daly
|
10. Pursuit is not enough. Shot the deer, it was galloping away, defendant shot it and it died. Must be an authorized huntsman, otherwise acquire no property because the animals are in trust by the public.
|
|
|
11. Pierson v. Post
|
12. had fox in sand was hunting with dogs, defendant knew the fox was being hunted. Killed it and took it away. Pursuit is not enough. PEERPOSTPURSUIT
|
|
|
13. Ghen v. Rich
|
14. custom that the harpoon identified the whale, it sank and was later recovered and returned to harpooner. Constructive control can be replaced with actual control if that is all that is possible and there are marks of appropriation. Also, local custom.
|
|
|
15. Goff v. Kilts
|
16. mans swarm left and flew into another mans tree. Continue to possess as long as you have sight over them and know where they are. Not about who owns the trees where the swarm went.
|
|
|
17. Hibbert v. Dalton
|
18. bread route abandoned. Abandoned = relinquishing all property rights. Burden of proof on the one who asserts abandonment
|
|
|
19. Reese v. Hughes
|
20. couldn’t show that it was tamed.
|
|
|
21. Stephens Co. v. Alberts
|
22. no statute and common law didn’t apply. Prior possession trumped everything.
|
|
|
23. Adams v. Burton
|
24. man tracked and found a swarm of bees on anothers land. Told him he would take it, no objection. Another guy found out and said HE would take it, no objection. Thus the first person to find the tree & take possession had better title to anyone unless they have a better right or title. By chopping he had been in as much possession as he would have been if he cut down the tree.
|
|
|
25. Armory v. Delamarie
|
26. boy finds jewel, shows it to goldsmith who takes stones out to measure and refuses to give back. PRIOR POSSESSION. FIRST FINDER.
|
|
|
27. Clark v. Maloney
|
28. man finds logs, ties them up in river, they float away, another person claims them. LOSS OF PROPERTY DOES NOT DIVEST THE SPECIAL PROPERTY OF THE PLAINTIFF.
|
|
|
29. Hannah v. Peel
|
30. man finds brooch in house owned by someone who doesn’t live there. Man wasn’t in possession since he did not live there and could not control it.
|
|
|
31. Bridges v. Hawkesworth
|
32. money (bills) dropped on the floor of a shop. Left unattached to the surface. General rule is Armory v. Delamarie and place found NORMALLY doesn’t matter. If unattached to surface.
|
|
|
33. South Staffordshire v. Sherman
|
34. found the rings embedded in mud in the pool while cleaning it out. Attached to or under the soil
|
|
|
35. Elwes v. Briggs Gas Company
|
36. prehistoric boat embedded in soil. Land leased to gas company which found it when digging. Everything under the land they were entitled to. Doesn’t matter if not aware. If embedded, owner of Locus in Quo is entitled -> even if abandoned.
|
|
|
37. Barker v. Bates
|
38. logs washed up on owners land. Neither had possession. “mere naked possession” = incomplete possession. Because Bates trespassed, preferable title is in the ratione soli
|
|
|
39. Durfee v. Jones - plaintiff left safe with defendant to keep books in and sell. Defendant found money in an interior lining of the safe. Never had possession of the money in the crevice, because were never in his control or custody, lacked intent to control the actual money.
|
40.
|
|
|
41. Merry v. Green
|
42.
|
|
|
43. Keron v. Cashman
|
44. Five boys found sock that contained something heavy. After playing with it, they found it included $775.00. An intention or state of mind with reference to the lost property (which requires conscious possession of the found item in dispute) is an essential element to constitute a legal “finder” of such property. The money was found only when the boys knew of the money inside the sock; that state of mind was concurrently held by the boys, so they were concurrent finders.
|
|
|
45. Fouke v. New York Consolidated Rail Company
|
46. plaintiff found a package that had been left by someone who just left the train. Tried to take it off and was detained by defendant. If chattel is mislaid, the owner of the locus in quo gets the title. Becomes gratuitous bailee.
|
|
|
47. Erickson v. Sinykin
|
48. plaintiff (a decorator at the hotel) found $760.00 under a rug in the course of performing duties. Abandoned property goes to first person who appropriated it, regardless of the locus in quo.
|
|
|
49. Pyle v. Springfield Marine Bank
|
50. plaintiff finds bond on the floor of a safety deposit vault booth (on the floor). When the locus in quo is a private place (knows who enters and exits), the right of custody of chattel goes to the owner of the locus in quo as trustee of the original owner.
|
|
|
51. Brothers v. Hurdle
|
52. An adverse possessor severed plants from the land. They became chattels and the adverse possessor had title in them. A property owner cannot sue for trover for chattel that was severed from his land by an adverse possessor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
53. Anderson v. Gouldberg
|
54. cut down logs on someone elses property. Someone else stole those logs. They appealed to third parties ownership (jus tertii). Jus tertii not enough in this case. Prior possessor rule applies to things obtained wrongfully. Policy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
55. Cochrane v. Moore
|
56. person told defendant he got ¼ share of horse. Horse was sold and he claimed ¼ of the proceeds. The ¼ share was never delivered -> so not a valid gift.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57. Crane v. Reardon
|
58.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59. Anderson v. Lord
|
60. testator gave paintings to D to hold. While D had paintings, testator told them they were his. If the property is at the time of the gift in possession of the donee, need not have redelivery if the gift is accepted and donor relinquishes dominion over the object.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
61. Innes v. Potter
|
62. WP endorsed shares to daughter. Wrote a letter to her establishing gift. Gave letter to someone to hold until his death and then deliver.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
63. Myers v. Myers
|
64. Dying woman gave third party instructions to transfer the deed to her son. But, didn’t give her son the letter of assignment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
65. In RE Kaufmans Estate
|
66. Dying woman sent letter to the TRUSTEE of her estate telling him to transfer money. Sent that letter with the letter of assignment to the donee FIRST. If had delivered to the agent FIRST, would have been an order, he’d be working for her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67. Carlson v. Bankers Trust
|
68. Dying man gave plaintiff keys to home and keys to safety deposit box as gift. Constructive delivery sufficient if relinquish dominion over the items.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
69. Matter of Cohn
|
70. Wrote a letter to his wife saying that he was giving her 500 shares of stock. Inter vivos gift. Couldn’t physically deliver the stock. Delivery of an instrument can constitute a good symbolical delivery when the circumstances dictate that physical delivery be excused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
71. In RE Hawkins
|
72. gave the defendant and husband money in a parcel and they gave it back for safekeeping in a safe. Don’t need to have continuing possession until the donor dies if the donor is just a custodian for the documents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
73. Silsbury v. McCoon
|
74. plaintiff willingly stole corn from defendant and converted it into whisky. A willful trespasser cannot acquire a title to property merely by changing it from one species to another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
75. Potter v. Mardre
|
76.
|
|
|
77. Weatherbee v. Green
|
78. defendant cut limber in good faith and made it into hoops and sold it. The change in identity test should use relative values. If the value is increased by so much that it would be too much reward to give it to the original owner. Can still maintain trover for original item.
|
|
|
79. Isle Royale Mining Co. v Hertin
|
80. P mistakenly entered upon D’s land and cut down several trees as cord wood. D repossessed the cord wood. Wanted compensation for labor. Value wasn’t increased that much. When a person misappropriates something and adds values to it, the original owner is not liable to pay the value of the labor unless it would be grossly unjust to award the benefit of that labor.
|
|
|
81. Pulcifer v. Page
|
82. Plaintiff stole another’s chain links and then proceeded to put them into a new chain. Defendant took the chain that had his links in it. The owner with the most materials or principle material acquires a right of property in the whole.
|
|
|
83. Pierce v. Goddard
|
84. man took down the materials of the house, transported them to his land, and reassembled them, with other materials into a new house. When materials taken from an owner are used to build something that becomes part of a freehold, the owner cannot reclaim the materials or the new object.
|
|
|
85. Pickering v. Moore
|
86. d leased a farm to p. p mixed 25 cords of his manure with the other manure so they were indistinguishable. If the amounts are known or its distinguishable, then each is entitled to their portion. Become tenants in common.
|
|
|
87. Somers v. Cane
|
88. defendant took some abandoned (their) logs and took some of the plaintiff’s logs. Intermixed them. Owner is not ALWAYS entitled to the whole mixture if the relative amount or value of their item can be ascertained.
|
|
|
89. People’s National Bank v. Mulholland -
|
90.
|
