property law: jan 16 2010 class notes.

capture.

pierson v. post: capture = possession. but one in pursuit of the animal may be said to be in possession if 1. unequivocal intention, 2. restrained the animal  and 3.brought in certain control

policy:
pierson didn't have possession, and so he lost.
n.b. this is not constructive possession? 
 
dissent: policy -- it gives people more incentive to try to capture "noxious beasts"... good argument, but not the rule.

ghen v. rich.
the query is who owns the whale carcass
rule: if you've done everything you can do in accord with custom, then you're copacetic. the court also looked to industry standards (a whale is a lot different from a fox)
policy: it's not practical and it would impede upon the whaling trade economy
it would be extremely impractical to have to chase the whale at the point that capture was begun, the only thing that they could do was wait for the whale

keeble v.
decoy duck in the pond causes loss of foul in the pond.
rationi soli (constructive possession, in regards to a landowner.)
rule: it is actionable when another hinders a person's property, even if he's not trespassed.

replevin. replevin comes up in all the animal cases.
trover.

rights of owners.
rights to exclude.
we as property owners have the right to exclude people from our land. however, if it is a public necessity, then you may have to admit the person in public interest.

state v. shack.