Personal Property

Misdelivery of a bailed object

the bailee is strictly liable in tort absent a special agreement or a statute. * a bailee is liable even if the bailee is not at fault

actual delivery of a bailment

the bailer physically hands over the property to the bailee

the farmers and mechanic's bank holds a mortgage on fred's farm. the farm's fields are watered by a standard irrigation system that has 3 components. light weight and portable gated pipes, riser pipes permanently connecting , and underground water pipes - fred defaults on the payment of the mortgage loan. and the bank forecloses. at the sale of the farm, will the gated pipes, riser pips, and underground water papes be included in the real property and sold as fixtures?

the gated pipes are not fixtures. they are protable and used in various lengths snf can be easily removed without damage to the underground and riser pipes. it is also possible that the riser pipes could be attached o to sprinklers , hoses and other devides nd so the fields could be irrigated in other ways. in contract the underground water pipes are a part of the realty, or at least fixtures and will remian on the farm.

Relativity of title

the idea that a person can have a relatively better title or right to possession than another, while simultaneously have a right inferior to yet another person.

Subrogation

the succession of another's rights or claim (after the goldsmith lost in Armory the Goldsmith acquired the right to the jewel, upon which the sweep based the suit) --> goldsmith now has rights superior to all but the true owner of the jewel.

would the result in Armory v delamirie be the same be the same if the true owner were known? assume the same facts as Armory except that the chimney sweep found the jewel outside the Pickering home. The Chimney sweep sues the goldsmith as before. As a defense, the godlsmith proves the jewel belongs to Mrs. Pickering rather than to the sweep. What result

the sweep would still win because the true owner who has the greatest right to the stone is not before the court.

Tresspassers & lost/abandoned/treasure troves

unless the trespass is trivial, the trespasser will lose out the landowner in these instances

Armas steals a valuable wristwatch form its true owner ad then takes it to B to repair. C steals it form B's shop. Can B seek an action in replevin against C?

yes. the issue is whether the bailee of a thief acquired the right to sue 3rd party wrong doers in replevin. the orderly conduct of bailments requires that although the thief had no possessory rights to transfer, a 2nd thief, without right, should not be able to set up a weakness in the bailor's (A's) ownership as a defense.

three elements of an effective gift

(1) donative intent (2) delivery of the object to the donee and (3) Donee's acceptance of the object

elements of possession

(1) intent to possess on the part of the possessor and (2) his actual controlling or holding the property. (both intent and control must be present to acquire the rights of the possesor

UCC §2-403

(1) purchaser of goods acquires all title which his transferor had or had power to transfer expect that a purchaser of a limited interest acquires rights only to the extent of the interest purchased. A person with voidable title has power to transfer and a good title to a good faith purchaser for value. when goods have been delivered under a transaction of purchase the purchaser has such power even though (a) the transferor was deceived as to the identity of the purchaser , or (b) the delivery was in exchange for a check which is later dishonored, or (c) it was agreed that the transaction was to be a "cash sale", r (d) the delivery was procured through fraud, punishable as larcenous under criminal law

elements of abandonment

(1) the act of abandonment and (2) the inent to abandon (intent is not assumed) Intent must be proven.

O removes her brooch during dinner at a restaurant. when O is distracted R picks up the brooch and walks away with it. R sells the brooch to B, a good faith pruchaser. In O v B who prevails? (b) same facts as above except R sells the brooch to B , a good faith purchaser who sees the brooch in R's jewelry store. who prevails between O and B?

(a) O wins. R had no titile. his title is void and cannot transfer a good title to B (b) O still wins. R hada void title, not voidable title. R stole the brooch. O did not entrust it to him so B cannot rely on UCC §2-403

A messenger employer by A is intructed to deliver some bearer bonds of Harmony to B. the messenger delivers the bonds of Harmon instead to B. emssenger enters B's offices, rings the bell and then deposits the bonds in a secure box to the side of the window. an employee at B sees the mistake and called out "company A" a person says yes, Company A" --> the employee hands over the bonds to the man who takes them and vanishes. has a bailment for the bonds been created at B's office?

B took possession by mistake and pormptly noticed and honestly tried to remedy the mistake, without any intent to interefere with the plaintiff's ownership. the B never accepted the delivery and hence did not take on responsibilities of a bailee. b/c no bailment wqas created in B. B was not strictly liable for misdelivery of the bonds.

Florence went shopping. on the way she stopped at a drive through sandwich shop. After paying for her food, Florence put her wallet on the passenger seat. FLorence parked her car at Barneys, which maintains a free parking lot for its customers. An attendant tends the lot. At the request of the parking lot attendant, FLorence left her keys with him. when florence left ehr car to go shopping, she inadvertantly left the wallet on the car seat. When trying to pay for a new outfit, florence missed her wallet and imediately returned to her car. Neither she, the attendant, nor the polcie could find her wallet. The wallet contained $350 cash. Florence sues barneys clothes for the valur of the wallet but mainly for the $350. who prevails?

Barney's was a bailee of the automobile under the facts. but it does not necessarily follow that barney's was the baliee of the wallet. the elements of Baliment are the actual physical control with intent to possess. -- delivery and acceptance. Assuming the wallet was delivered, there was no acceptance or intent to possess. A wallet is not usually possessed by the operator of the parking lot, and the attendant had no notice of the wallet. No bailment of hte wallet, thus no liability under the bailment rueles

TO loses her watch. F1 finds the watch. F1 lays the watch on a table surrounded by a ground of ppl. while F1 was standing there F2 picks up the watch. F1 demands the watch back. F2 refuses to return the watch. which of the two has teh right to leave with the watch?

F1 has greater rights to the watch than everyone in the whole world other than the TO

TO loses her watch. F1 finds the watch. a week later F1 loses the watch in a park. 4 days later F2 walks into a room with F1 present and announces that she found a watch in the park. F1 asks if the watch has certain characteristics, which it does. F1 claims the watch. F2 does not want to give the watch to F1. who should the watch go to F1 or F2?

F1 has greater rights to the watch than the whole world except the rightful owner, and thus F1 gets the watch

Owen executed an otherwise valid deed of gift. the deed contained a power to revoke. does the power to revoke indicate a lack of donative intent sufficient to invalidate the gift?

NO. if the deed adequately indicted a present donative intent. -- an intent at the time owen delivered the deed to make a gift -- the gift is good. the donee owns the property. Owen made teh gift with a qualification, and retains the right to demand that the property be returned to him. the gift was complete and belongs to the donee until and unless Owen affirmatively revokes

vendors executed a contract of sale to sell their home, but had another house on the real property they sold. the second house was rented to a tenant. the contract reserved teh right to remove a gas range from the vendor's home. can the vendors remove an identical stove from the rental house?

NO. the rental house was presumably sold as a unit, not in discrete parts. here the reservation of the right to remove the stove in the main house is presumed to be exclusive unless the vendors reserve furhter items in the contract. in this instance, they do not.

assume the facts of Pierson v Post: Post chasing the fox with hounds leading the way. (a) suppose further that the record at the trial in Pierson v Post proved that Post's hunt was interrupted by nightfall, and he camped and slept while his dogs continued to pursue the fox overnight. Post resumed hunting in the morning and thereafter the facts of Pierson are the same as reported in the opinion. Pierson happened by as Post closed in on the fox, and Pierson killed the fox before Post did. would this proof change the outcome of the case?

No. The only difference is the interruption in Post's hunt - and, if anything, that interruption seems to give the result in favor of Pierson more, rather than less, support. Post would likely argue that his dogs carried on the hunt for him, so the hunt was never really interrupted, and that the dogs put post in constructive pursuit all the while. But pursuit is not possession.

O writes, signs, and delivers a check to D, drawn on O's checking account as a gift, but dies before D cashes it. Does D have a right to cash the check?

No. the donor's death revoked the right of the bank to cash it so the gift was incomplete b/c the donors retention of a power to revoke the gift.

detta meets richardo. Odetta is induced by Richardo's false representation that he is JR ( a man of wealth and good reputation) so that odetta parts with possession of a jewel. richardo sells the jewel to BFP, a bona fide purchaser. In a suit between Odetta and BFP, what result and why?

Odetta intended to deal with ricardo, and b/c ricardo posed as JR, Odetta transferred the Jewel to him. Odetta assumed the risk and did not back ground check. Ricardo has a voidable title or a title that ripened to a good title once in the hands of a BFP. Odetta had the ability to prevent the problem, and did not do so.

Opal owned a race horse. Abel acquired the title certificate to the horse from the jockey club. Abel, noticing Opal's name on the title certificate to the jockey club had been forged, transferred the title certificate to the racehorse to Ben in full payment of a debt Abel owed to Ben. Ben, thinking the title was legal, sold the horse and endoresed the title certificate to Cory, another trainer. Under Corey's training, the horse won several races. Opal watching one of these races recognized the horse as her horse. What advice would you give Opal?

Opal may elect to sue any one of the succesive convertors of her property - Abel, ben, or Corey - in trover for money damages, probably making this election depending on the value of the horse at the time of each conversion. ONly one of these judgement may be satisfied otherwise she would wind up overcompensated.

assume the facts of Pierson v Post: Post chasing the fox with hounds leading the way. (c) Suppose Pierson captured and cages the fox. A week later the fox escaped the cage. the next day Post killed the fox. Pierson sues for damages. what is the result?

Post owes no damages. an escaped wild animal is deemed to have been returned to nature and once more belongs to no one. there are exceptions. If the animal is not native to the area such that a reasonable person would gather that the animal belonged to someone, the original owner remains the owner. --> under the doctrine of animus revertendi, a person does not lose his interest in an animal that has a habit of returning to its owner's property.

the biotech inductrsy is in part founded on the use of other peoples body parts. Is a bailment created when a diseased organ is removed surgically from a patient by a doctor and the later used in research that produces valuable medicine?

Several issues arise. first, whether a human organ can be the object of a bailment by the donor. -- if bailment rules do not apply, the issue turns on whether the patient intended to give the organ to the surgeon for any purpose or for a limited purpose of destroying it according to the law, whether the patient abandoned the organ or released all interest in the organ.

Joan, the owner of an expensive broach transfers it to Tco, a trust company to hold it for Bess. a Trust involves Tco's retention of the legal title, while Bess as the so-called beneficiary of the trust has the right to use it. Before giving it back to Bess, Tco mistakenly sells the brooch to Pete, a bonafide purchaser. Does Perte get to keep the brooch

Yes, Joan intended to split the title into a legal and equitable component, so the title in Tco's hands was voidable. so , if as stated, Pete was in fact a bona fide purchaser. Pete's ownership now trumps joan's. Bess still has a remedy: she can sue Tco for a breach of Tco's fiduciary duty as a trustee, measuring damages by the lost value of the brooch, but no right to replevin the brooch from pete

Is the giving of the keys to a dresser a symbolic or a constructive delivery?

giving the keys may be a symbolic delivery of the piece of furniture, but could be a constructive delivery of the contents of the dresser, found in the drawers. these two concepts are easily confused, but both are useful means for courts to uphold a gift when there is sufficient evidence of donative intent but no actual property.

Treasure Trove

gold, silver, and in some jurisdictions, currency, intentionally concealed or placed underground with indications it has been so long concealed that the true owner has long since died. - **Carries a sense of antiquity

Pledge

is a bailment to secure a debt or obligation of the bailor. *a bailment for security

Conversion

is a common law tort for using another's property inconsistent with the rights of the true owner or rightful possessor.

Entrustment

is a particular type of bailment in which the transferor gives the transferee an apparent authority to deal with goods in ways a bailment contract may not authorize

Fixture

is personal property that has been permanently attached to real property, but that could be removed

Mislaid property

is property the true owner intentionally placed in a given location and then left, or intentionally left intending to return for it later

lost property

is property the true owner unintentionally and unknowingly dropped or lost

Abandoned Property

is property where the true owner intentionally and voluntarily relinquished, with the intent to no longer own the object, and without transferring his rights to another person.

Possession

is the controlling or holding or personal property, with out without a claim of ownership.

(e) what types of pursuit - short of actually resulting in possession - do you think might give rise to a judicial finding of possession?

it might be pursuit. (1) halted by an interference that give rise to a tort liability; or (2) halted by a person like Pierson, but whose actions also violate the hunting regulations of the state; or (3) halted by a person who commits a crime or violates some other public policy by interfering. the interference by an outside party might be of such a nature as to render his activity illegal, tainting his acts from the start and so focusing the court's attention on the actions of the intermeddler, rather than the rights of the plaintiff claiming possession.

void title

means no title. a bailee has no title and a thief has no title

BFP / good faith purchaser

must act in good faith and without notice that the wrong doer did not have a good title * also must pay valuable consideration

Finders who are on the property for a limited purpose

must relinquish any property found to the landowner. here the finder does not have any persmission to find things, and so is acting outside the scope of his authorized entry

TO told andy "stay as long as you need a place." aandy did and aafter teh SOL passed, andy sued TO in order to establish Adverse possession. will andy's claim succeed?

no. TO's permission immunizes his holdings from Andy's claim. Andy's possession must be hostile and adverse to TO's ownership. TO can stop andy's claim dead by showing that Andy had permission to take possession.

Embedded property

objects embedded in the soil belong to the property owner and not to the finder, even if the object is foreign to the native soil

constructive delivery of a bailment

occurs when one gives the keys to safe deposit box or to a heavy or bulky object, such as a bureau or chest of drawers, to the transferee; this transfer controls the object without actual delivering it.

symbolic delivery

occurs when the bailor gives the bailee a thing symbolizing the object of the bailment

Andy, brad and charlie are playing. Andy finds a bag weighty enough to be tossed. Andy tosses the bag to brad. As brad catches the bag, teh bag breaks and money spills on the ground. charlie snatches up the money. to which child would you give the money to, assuming the TO cannot be located?

option 1: to say the boys were all acting in unison and to slpit the money evenly (2) to say that Andy took control of the bag with the intent to possess it, and thus he should get the money since the money was in the bag (3) give the money to charlie since it was cahrlie who took control over the money with the intent to possess it.

treasure trove belongs to whom?

property that , in England, belongs to the Crown; in USA it belongs to the finder

abandoned property belongs to whom

property that belongs to the finder

'lost' property belongs to whom?

property that belongs to the finder ( (unless and until the true owner is located)

'Mislaid' property belongs to whom?

property that belongs to the owner of the locus in quo (the premises owner or lessee (unless and until the true owner is located)

Real Property, real estate, realty

refers to land and the improvements to the land

The Ghen opinion states: "neither respondent rich nor ellis knew the whale had been killed by Ghen, but they knew or should have known, if hey had wished, that it had been shot and killed with a bomb-lance, by some person engaged in this species of business" what do you think might have been the effect of this trial court finding in Ghen on a case like Pierson.

the judge in Pierson, relying on Ghen, might have said that while in pursuit Post was in constructive possession of the fox for the purposes of protecting to hunt that fox. If so the court would have ruled in favor of Post this time. More likely, the majority in Pierson would have would have distinguished gGhen on the grounds that in Ghe , the P killed the whale. Mere pursuit of a whale conferred no benefit. Pierson's majority opinion in (nonbinding dicta) said that intercepting a wild animal so as to deprive it of its natural libertyu and make its escape impossible may be considered possession. Using this logic, harpooning and killing a whale is much more like "intercepting" it. but not sighting and chasing it.

is a photography laboratory that accepts undeveloped film for processing into prints or slides a bailee of the film? us this a bailment where the same thing, or different chattle is expected back? if there is a bailment, can the fine print on the box of film or the receipt for the film exculpate or limit the liability of the lab?

the laboratory is a bailee. the photos to be returned can be traced to the original film, which distinguishes this case from one of fungible goods. the lab is liable for the price of the film. this may be a case where the lab can limit its liability. some courts may not allow a bailee to limit its liability for its own negligence, however.

Possessory rights

the possessor is said to have superior rights to personal property against all except those having higher rights or title

mutually beneficial Bailment

the standard of care imposed on the bailee rises and the bailee is liable for negligence and has a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances

WHo has possession of the empty underground space left after mining or after the extraction of oil gas from the cavity in the earth? if oil or gas was injectd into the cavity, would the surface owner have a trespass action against the injecting party?

the surface owner regains "possession" of the mined-out space after the mneras have been extracted. It may be a trespass, therefore, when already captured oil or gas is pumped back into the cavity for storage. Another thought, following the rule of wild animals, is the that the oil has returned to its natural state (given its natural liberty again) and thus is owned by the first landowner to pump it back out. In that case, the injecting party does not have sufficent possession of it to commit a trespass with it

Bailment

the transfer and delivery by an owner or prior possessor (the bailor) of possesion of personal property to another (bailee) ** transfer of possession of property for a limited purpose, once accomplished, requires redelivery of the property.

during the early evening hours D parked his car in an attended parking lot. D gives the keys to the attendant, who asks him how long it will be before D returns. D says he will return at midnight (2 hours after the lot closes) the attendent moves the car to a space visile from the booth and D pays the parking fee for the hours up to closing. The attendant says that at closing he will put the keys to D's car under the floormat. D nods in effect that he has heard the attendant, but when D returns at midnight, his car has vanished. D sues the parking lot owner for conversion of the vehicle. In this suit, what result and why

the transfer of the keys and well as the moving of the car by the attendant to a space selected by the attendant suggests that there is a bailment. assuming the attendant was acting in the scope of his employment , the crucial questions is whether there was construcive redelivery of the car. b/c the action of the attendant made possible the theft, the rule of strict liability or the presumption of negligence should apply.

Today almost all states have enacted hunter harassment statutes, making it at least a misdemeanor to interfere intentionally with lawful hunting, and including in the definition of "interference" actions are intended to affect the natural behavior of a hunted wild animal. what is the likely effect of such a statute on the outcome in Pierson?

two outcomes seem reasonable here: (1) the purpse behind the statutes may be to resolve disputes between hunters and nonhunters, so that disputes between two hunters, such as is represented in Pierson v post would be unaffected and the outcome the same as under the common law. (2) and more broadly, Post would win if in effect of such statute was to extend the unlawful interference policy in Keeble to the facts of Pierson. Pierson's actions may reasonably be argued to have influenced the behavoir of the hunted animal so the statutory definition of interference is met.

gratuitous bailment

when the benefit of the bailment to the bailee is slight, the care required of the bailee is slight; the bailee is only liable for gross negligence **such as a person taking care of an object for a friend or neighbor, or one created by mistake

ten years ago Adam entered and began adversely possessing whiteacre. this year Adam deeds whiteacre over to xeno, a bona fide purchaser. what estate does xeno obtain?

xeno acquires all of the right, title, and estate that Adam had. This xeno can tack her own possessory right onto Adam's ten years of adverse possession, so the xeno can acquire title by adverse possession in ten more years in a state wiht a 20 year SOL

Orlando asked arron to take some jewelry to Ben to be cleaned. Aaron delivered Orlando's jewelry to ben as directed. on the promised date Orlando called for the jewelry and demanded possession. Must ben delivery them to Orlando.

yes. Ben must delivery the jewelry to Orlando when Orlando provides proof of ownership.Acceptance of the bailment should not estop the bailee form inquiring into the rights of the bailor. acceptance raises only a rebuttable presumption of the bailors right.

25 years ago A entered and immediately began adversely possessing TO's brownacre. TO now arrives and tells A it is TO's land. A is surprised and says she is sorry; she thought it was her land and didnt know it belonged to TO. in a state with a 20-year SOL, does A own the brown acre?

yes. after the SOL has run, admission is irrelevant to the passage of title to A by adverse possession. the statute is a statute of repose. once perfected, a title of Adverse possession is as good as any good title.

strict liability

an actor is strictly liable for damages notwithstanding any actions he took or failed to take

constructive bailment

arises when possession of personal property is acquired and retained under circumstances in which the recipient should keep it safely and return it to its owner.

Bailment beneficial to the bailee

as with borrwed objects, the bailee's standard of care rises again and the merest neglect or any damage renders the bailee liable (strict liability)

inter vivos gift

gifts between living persons

(a) in september, Lee hands peter a signed paper promising that Lee will give peter 10,000 shares of profit corp as a christmas present. lee died in November, devising all his stocks and bonds to carol. Carol and peter both claim the profit corp stock. who gets the stock? (b) in september, lee transfered 10,000 stock bonds to peter with the qualificaiton the lee will receive all dividends paid by Prof corp. on the stocks to carol before xmas. lee dies in november, devising all his bonds to carol. carol and peter both claim the profit corp stock. who gets the stock

(a) Carol wins. lee's promsie is unenforceable becasue Peter gave no consideration. When lee died he was the legal owner and the stock passes according to his will (b) Peter keeps the stock. the gift in september was a present gift, with a present intent to make a gift, delivery, and acceptance. Lee's retaining the income for 4 months does not make the gift incomplete.

Oprah pruchases an expensive painting to dan, an art dealer and conservator, for cleaning. a week later B sees the painting hanging in Dan's gallery and showroom and pruchases it form Dan at a fair priceand without any actual knowledge that Dan does not own it, Who now owns the painting? (b) same facts but B sees the painting in D's conservator shop rather than the gallery. B buys it as before. Who owns the painting? (c) Same fact in (a), except that B is another art dealer and owner of an art gallery. Should another merchant have the benefit of the UCC's entrustment provision , or is it just a "consumer statute"

(a) B owns the painting becasue she has dealt with a merchant with whom the painting has been entrusted. under the UCC Dan ahs the authority to transfer absolute ownership of the painting to bridget. (b) Oprah does. with the change in location of the painting, the doctrine of entrustment is not available to B. B seeing the painting in the fix up room would not give her the impression that Dan has the authority to sell the painting.

cental bank repossed an airplane when the owner defaulted on a loan. 4 months later, the bank took the plane to Linder Aviation for its annual inspection. Linder Aviation conducted its business in a hanger leased from the City Airport. Ben, an employee of Linder Aviation, inspected the plane. he removed panels from the wings. although these panels are suppsoed to be removed annually at teh inspection, a few screws were rusted into place. Ben used a drill to remove the rusted screws and the panels. Inside the left wind, ben discovered two packets of $20 bils with mint date of 40 years ago. the bills totaled $80,000. (a) as between Ben and Linder Aviation, who gets the money? (b) as between the prevailing party in (a) and City Airport, who gets the money? (c) as between the prevailing party in (b) and central bank, who gets the money? (d) as between the prevailing party in (c) and the previous owner of the airplane (who defaulted on the loan to central bank) who gets the money?

(a) Ben is the finder, but as he is also an employee in a place solely becasue of his employment, a court will likely award the money to his employer. (b) between linder Aviation and City Airport, Linder Aviation prevails. although City airport owned the land and hanger, Linder Aviation had legal possession. (c) between Linder aviation adn the bank, the issue is whther the packets of money were "lost" or "mislaid" the facts suggest someone intentionally placed the money inside teh wing and thus the money is mislaid and not lost. mislaid property belongs to the owner of the place where the money was found. money was found in an airplane owned by the bank --> the bank wins (d) between the bank and the owner of the plane before the bank foreclosed, the bank as the current owner of the plane prevails. the only chance the owner has is if he can show he was the true owner of the money.

in one year charles buried $25,000 in coins and paper money in tin cans and glass jars in his back yard. it was commonly known that charles did not trust banks and hid his money on his property. charles died in year 12. all is property passed to his son Ozzie. Ozzie sold the land to david in year 20. later david haird Ellison to tear down and replace a garage. In removing the grarage, Ellison found the $25,000. (a) Ozzie, David, and Ellison all claim the $25,000 --> who prevails? (b) was the money lost, mislaid, abandoned, or a treasure trove? (c) Assume Ozzie cannot be found. who gets the cash: David or Ellison?

(a) Ozzie gets the money. he inherited all of Charles property, including the money and the land. Ozzie is the rightful owner of the money and prevails over david, the current land owner and Ellison, the finder. as far as david goes, even though he was sold the land, and everything presumably on the land, the money and the land are seperate assets. the sale of one is not the sale of the other (b) the money was not lost. the money could be mislaid. the fact that the money is in cans and jars is some indication that Charles intentionally placed the money in the ground. the value of the money and the manner of its burial indicates it was not abandoned. It might be a treasure trove, but it lacks the essential feel of antiquity characteristic of a treasure trove, the characterization that fits best is MISLAID: intentionally placed in the ground and the whereabouts forgotten, or at least not told to ozzie (c) Ellison must argue the money was lost or abandoned , ora treasure trove since David as the oner of the premises wins if the money was mislaid. since the porperty was mislaid, the moeny goes to david because he is the owner of the land. also David could argue that the money was embedded in the soil and not on the surface. embedded objects belong to the owner of the soil - rather than the finder.

Omar collects stamps. a decade or so ago he purchased a set of stamps for $150,000. Last year Omar donated a dresser to charity. Pete bought the dresser for #30. Pete found the stamps in the dresser and advertised them for sale in a nationally circulated stamp catalog. Omar saw the ad and demanded the stamps be returned to him. Pete refused. Omar sued. Pete defended by argueing "finder's keepers, losers weepers." (a) is Omar's action one for replevin or one for trover?' (bP as a judge, how would you rule on Pete's argument?

(a) omar brought an action in Replevin to obtatin possession of personal property wrongfully detained by another. (b) Under the holding of Armory v Delamirie, Pete had greater ownerhsip rights than the whole world except for the true owner. Once Omar proves he is the true owner, he wins and Pete loses. the sale of contibution of the dresser to the charity was not a gift of the stamps inside. Finders keepers, losers weepers, it not the law

Ghen is a whaler pursuing a finback whale, which instantly dies of the wound.The whale (as whales do when dying) sinks and two days later is discovered on beach by Ellis, who sells it to Rich. who owns the whale?

Ghen inflicted the mortal wound and so arguably had constructive possession of the whale at that point, even though he did not have actual possession of the whale. the custom of the industry as quoted is the ground on which Ghen was decided.

Personal property, personalty

all property other than real property

Trover

an action for monetary compensation for conversion of personal property. (a forced sale)

assume the facts of Pierson v Post: Post chasing the fox with hounds leading the way. (b) Suppose that the record at the trial in Pierson v Post proved that pierson saw Post running after the fox and just as Post closed in on the animal, Pierson muttered "that-no good Post can't have that fox" and that, just after saying that, Pierson shot the fox and carried it off right under Post's nose. would this proof change the outcome of the case?

It might. with this additional proof, Pierson's intent is not to seize the fox, but to deprive Post of it. A court that considers the subjective intent or an objective manifestation of spite or maliciousness might rule in Post's favor, or more specifically, might rule against Pierson b/c of Pierson's bad conduct. Alternatively, a court may conclude Pierson does not have the requisite intent to possess that the law requires for legal possession. -- two requirements are necessary for possession. (1) intent to posses and (2) control. Control by itself is not enough. Other courts may not look to Piersons motives but may conclude his action of picking up the fox exhibited the requisite intent to possess control.

Larry proposed marriage to Hillary, buying and placing on hillary's finger an engagement ring. 6 months later hillary broke the engagement when she learned of larry's infidelity. Larry brought a suit in replevin for the ring. what result?

Larry gets the ring back. (although some courts disagree) most courts hold that an engagement ring is given in contemplation of marraige and is therefore a conditional gift. the marraige is an act that must occur before the gift is completed.

owen purchased an expensive painting to hang in his home. Owen thereafter gave the painting to Seth, his son, with a letter saying "if and when you do not have a place to hang it, i want it back." Owen kept the bill of sale for the painting. Seth moved to a studio apartment with no place to hang the painting. Seth consigned it to an art dealer for sale. Ted stole the painting from the dealer. Ted sold the painting to Ben. The police recovered the painting from Ben. Who should the police give the painting to? clue: who has the right to present possession of the painting?

Owen has the present right of possession. Seth was given the painting subject to a written condition that he return the painting upon a certain event occurring. the event occurred. when seth tried to consign it to the dealer he did not have the power to do so. Ted, the thief has a void title and thus he cannot transfer a god title. Thus Ben acquired a void title from Ted. (had the painting been sold by the gallery, the purchaser would have been a good faith purchaser and a the out come may have been different)

assume the facts of Pierson v Post: Post chasing the fox with hounds leading the way. (d) suppose Pierson captured and caged the fox. under cover of darkness, Post then entered onto Pierson's land and took the fox form the cage . Pierson discovered what happened and sued Post to recover the fox. what result?

Post must return the fox. Pierson's property interest in the fox remains in full force as long as the fox is caged. Post's unlocking the cage is a wrongful interference with Pierson's rightful possession. The law frowns on trespass.

why wouldn't the Ghen court decide its case just on the basis of the law as stated in Pierson? (why wasnt Pierson Pierson decided according to the custom of hunters, as Judge Livingston suggested in his dissent of Pierson v Post

The court could have followed Pierson v Post, but the holding would have upset an entire industry that had operated successfully under the custom of awarding the whale to the person who kills it. the judge limited the custom as law holding to cases where the custom had been recognized and acquesced in for many years, and that undoing hte custom may destry the industry.

Fixture

a form of chattel or personal property that, while retaining a separate identity, is so connected to the real property that the law considers it part of the really

gift causa mortis

a gift made on account of a donor's impending death

mortal wounding

a mortal wound is one that on an objective basis is likely to prove fatal and (2) shows a manifestation of intent to seize the animal

gift

a noncontractual, gratuitous transfer of property. it is made without legal consideration

fred is a member of the armed forces and is about to go to war. is he contemplating death in a way required to make a gift causa mortis

a person about to go to war is not facing an imminent peril giving rise to an expectation of death. there are however, english cases to the contrary

Finder

a person who (1) takes control of the lost property (2) has the intent to maintain possession of the property

good faith purchaser of bona fide purchaser

a person who buys honestly and without notice of any conflicting claim on the property bought, whether or not the purchaser was negligent

A manufacturing company discharges chemicals from its plant into a nearby creek, causing a fish kill. the state attorney general's office in the fish. In this suit , what result and why?

a state government may have sufficient "possession" of wild animals to regulate the hunting of them. yet this possession is for regulatory rather than hunting purposes and so may be insufficient to justify the state's bringing an action based on ownerhisp of the fish. the state might authorize by statute to do so, and this case shows the need for statutes governing water pollution and protection of wild animals fish and fowl.

voidable title

a title that is voidable in that the true owner can rescind the transaction and get the property back *** title in the wrongdoer is good until the true owner rescinds and which the wrong doers title becomes void.

replevin

action to recover the asset itself

NY Adverse possession staute

demand and refusal

Negligence

demands that the actor be at fault. ** depends on state law creating (1) a duty, standard of care and (2) the D's action or inaction breaching that duty

contrsuctive possession

denotes possession that has the same effect in law as actual possession

Finders who are employees

employees are acting for the benefit of their employers and therefore must give all found items to their employers (mislaid objects still go to the owners of locus in quo)

first in sight, first in right

establishing a priority of rights based on the time of acquriing the right in question