Pierson v. Post
Citation: 3 Cai. R. 175 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1805)
Facts
Lodowick Post was hunting a fox with his hounds on an uninhabited beach. Jesse Pierson, knowing Post was in pursuit, intercepted and killed the fox, taking it for himself. Post sued for the value of the fox. The lower court found for Post; Pierson appealed.
Issue
What act is sufficient to establish property rights in a wild animal — mere pursuit, or actual capture or mortal wounding?
Holding
The New York Supreme Court reversed and held for Pierson. Mere pursuit of a wild animal does not vest property rights in the pursuer. Actual possession — through capture, killing, or mortal wounding coupled with continued pursuit — is required to establish ownership.
Rule
First possession of wild animals (ferae naturae) requires actual control or deprivation of the animal’s natural liberty, not merely pursuit. A pursuer acquires no property right until capture or mortal wounding with continued chase.
Significance
Pierson v. Post is the paradigmatic first-possession case and the traditional starting point for property courses. The majority’s bright-line capture rule is weighed against Livingston’s dissent favoring a reasonable prospect rule that would reward productive effort. The case opens inquiries into what values property rules serve (certainty vs. investment incentives) and how courts select among competing allocation principles.