Buster v. Newkirk

20 Johns. 75
New York Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1822·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The principles decided in the case of Pierson v. Post, (3 Caines’ Rep. 175.) are applicable here. The authorities cited in that case, (establish the position, that property can be acquired in animals ferae naturae, by occupancy only; and that, in order to constitute such an occupancy, it is sufficient if the animal is deprived of his natural liberty, by wounding, or otherwise, so that he is brought within the power and control of the pursuer. In [76] the present case, the deer, though wounded, ran six miles j and the defendant in error had abandoned the pursuit that day, and the deer was not deprived of his natural liberty, so as to be in the power or under the control of JV. He, therefore, cannot be said to have had a property in the animal, so as to maintain the action. The judgment must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Buster v. Newkirk, 20 Johns. 75 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1822).

20 Johns. 75 (Buster v. Newkirk) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dapson v. Daly
153 N.E. 454 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1926)
Mullett v. Bradley
24 Misc. 695 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)
People v. Doxtater
27 N.Y.S. 481 (New York Supreme Court, 1894)