Pierson vs. Post - Livingston: Still was Pierson malicious?...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Econ 404 5/12/2009 Pierson vs. Post Judge: Tompkins – delivers opinion of court. Judge = Livingston Court: Supreme Court of NY (Location, Date): NY, August 1805 Plaintiff: Post Case Summary: Tompkins: In a scheduled fox-hunt by Post on a public beach, Pierson knowingly killed the pursued fox and carried it off as his own. Wild animals are no one’s property, until you kill one. Even if you wound it, it’s not yet yours. Pursuit alone doesn’t give you rights to the animal. Pursuit gives a “false notion of possession.” Continue debate of occupancy; go through old Latin texts on law and hunting.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Livingston: Still was Pierson malicious? Judgment should be submitted to the sportsman, not to old writings. People change with time, as should laws. The pursued animal should belong to the hunter, not the chance occupant. Defense: Pierson Verdict: Overturned, Pierson is at fault, and it is not ok to take an animal that is knowingly being pursued. Therefore, Post won. Law and Economics Notes: Why bother paying money to stage a hunt on your own if you can shoot the animals from someone elses and claim them as your own?...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online