P was pursuing a fox while hunting with his hounds on a remote piece of property that no one owned.
D killed and captured the fox even though he was aware that P was pursuing it.
P sued D for trespass.
Procedural History:
Trial court found for P.
NY Supreme Court reversed, found for D.
Issues:
Does the fact that a person is pursuing a wild animal give that person the right to the animal?
Holding/Rule:
The mere fact that a person is pursuing a wild animal does not give that person the right to the animal.
Mortally wounding or killing the wild animal would be sufficient to show possession since this limits the natural rights of the animal.
Reasoning:
Possession of wild animals should be confined as such as to preserve the peace and order in society.
If the first who sees or pursues a wild animal without wounding or trapping the animal had possession of the animal, this would give rise to much litigation.
Dissent:
This should be settled by the law of sportsmen, not by the law of the courts.
Possession should be given to the pursuer if he is pursuing the game with large dogs.
Notes:
Majority rule does not leave much room for question, possibly why it is the majority rule.
