Pierson v Post: CA 1805

Post and his hounds were pursuing a fox on waste ground in Long Island when Pierson intercepted and killed it. Post sued, claiming ownership of the fox, and won at trial. The court was asked: ‘Whether a person who, with his own hounds, starts and hunts a fox on waste and uninhabited ground, and is on the point of seizing his prey, acquires such an interest in the animal, as to have a right of action against another, who in view of the huntsman and his dogs in full pursuit, and with knowledge of the chase, shall kill and carry him away?’
Held: (Livingston J dissenting) On appeal, the judgment was reversed by the New York Supreme Court, the majority view being given by Justice Tompkins. Mere pursuit gave Post no legal right to the fox, but that he became the property of Pierson, who intercepted and killed him.

Tompkins J, Livingston J
(1805) 3 Caines 175
Bailii
United States
Cited by:
CitedBorwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd CA 1-May-2020
Only Limited Ownership of pond fish
BDS owned land with closed fishing ponds. They sold the land to the respondents, but then claimed that the fish, of substantial value, were not included in the contract. The court as asked whether the captive fish were animals ferae naturae or . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Torts – Other

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.650628