Pierson v. Post

1. Facts

a. “Relevant”

b. “Irrelevant” — role of the lawyer

2. Process

a. Capias/summons

b. Appearance before the justice

c. Declaration — trespass vs. case

d. Jury

e. Certiorari

f. Assignment of error — 6 –> 1

3. Holding

4. Sources of Law

a. Statutes

b. Common law cases

i. N.Y.
ii. England (Keeble)
iii. Other common law jurisdictions

c. Wisdom
d. Custom
e. Policy

5. Reasoning Process—Did the court have to reach this result?

a. No, because Justinian is not binding in N.Y., even in 1805

i. There's a common law case that shows another way (Keeble)
ii. Policy leads the other way, at least a/c the dissent
iii. Custom may lead the other way

b. Even if we look to Justinian

i. He doesn't put this case
ii. The closest analogue is decided as a matter of imperial fiat rather than  natural law

c. The policy is shaky

i. Majority assumes:
   that people in this situation will know the law
   that the rule it is proposing is more certain
   that more disputes occur at the capture stage than at the possession stage

ii. Dissent assumes
    that foxes are a bad thing
    that people in this situation will know the law
    that having the fox will encourage hunters

6. Agway

a. From the point of view of the Pa. Attorney General
b. Why didn't it work
c. From the point of view of a legislative committee
d. The public/private distinction

7. Why did they reach this result? The place where the academic and the practical  meet.

a. Structure—unconscious
b. Interests—conscious
c. The pegs theory of jurisprudence—particularism

8. Where does this lead us? The fork in the road.

a. The high road—occupation as the root of property—Johnson
b. The middle road—system building with other cases—pp. 18-19
c. The low road — practical implications — the unceasing abuse of fundamental  ideas — Agway

Pierson Penumbra

1. Occupation theory

a. What is the occupation theory
b. To what extent is it a "justification" of property? normative vs. descriptive — as descriptive almost certainly wrong:

i. Acquisitiveness should be protected
ii. Basic human needs
iii. Protecting human will
iv. On the ground of efficiency
v. In order to protect the peace

2. Johnson

a. The facts
b. Why not follow the occupation theory here?

i. The Indians didn't occupy
ii. Possession doesn't equal power to convey
iii. Lost by conquest
iv. Sovereignty + derivative power

3. Percheman — pure race prejudice?

a. Permanent vs. non-permanent
b. Law of nations vs. the Indians
c. The treaty and the treaty clause
d. The sovereign has acted (his acts must be manipulated)

Jus Tertii

1. Actions to recover real property, historically
2. Tapscott

a. What action in 1250?
b. Why is this still an issue in the 19th century?
c. What does the first sentence of the opinion mean?
d. Should Mrs. Cobbs be protected?

3. Winchester

a. Why is the city allowed to raise the jus tertii?
b. What happened to the policy of protecting peaceable possession?
c. Need the city worry about having to pay twice?

4. Why Winchester different from Tapscott

a. She undertook to prove ownership
b. She must prove ownership because she's seeking permanent damages

i. How to do this at common law
ii. The problem of sovereign immunity

c. Policy of protecting peaceable possession
d. Policy against double recovery

5. Summary

a. Possession/seisin-based notion of ownership
b. Why? Policies and principles:

i. Proof
ii. Peace
    Criminal
    Civil
iii. Possession worth protecting in itself?

Adverse Possession

1. Adverse Possession — Stat. 21 Jac. 1 (1623)

a. Change in method
b. Consequences of the statute for ownership
c. Derivation of the 5 essential elements
d. Policy of the statute

i. Laches         
ii. Reward         
iii. Clearing titles

how related?

e. What length of time?

f. Why have disability provisions?

2. Keeble in Hohfeldian terms
3. The position of AP in Hohfeldian terms

a. right (possession)
b. privilege (use)
c. power (to run out the statute)
d. power (convey) –> Belotti

4. Consider the following problems in Hohfeldian terms:

a. O –> life estate W –> remainder C, W leaves, AP enters

i. After statute has run C sues AP
ii. AP enters before O conveys

b. AP –> life estate W –> remainder C, W dies, C enters, O sues

i. Neither W nor C has held for stat period, but together they have
ii. After holding for statutory period, W –> T, W dies, C sues T

c. O –> life estate W –> remainder C, conveyance is void, W enters and holds
    for statutory period –> T and dies, C sues

Geragosian and Peters

1. What is the rule of the Geragosian case?
2. Does it make sense (see below)?
3. To what extent does Peters modify the rule?

a. Larger encroachment
b. Registered land

Geragosian

1. What the lower court held
2. Why not ejectment?
3. How to measure damages

a. Loss to plaintiff
b. Benefit to defendant

4. Effect of granting injunction
5. Why did the upper court hold as it did?

a. Reasons offered
b. Ways out

i. Relative hardship
ii. Laches
iii. Estoppel
iv. Unclean hands

c. Some speculations — Rugg, Crosby, Pierce, Field, Lummus, Qua and Donahue

Edwards

April, 1928 — Lee filed suit
Edwards v. Lee, 230 Ky. 370 (1929) — interlocutory appeal
Edwards v. Sims, 232 Ky. 791 (1929) — prohibition action
Edwards v. Lee, 250 Ky. 166 (1932) — fixing the boundaries
Edwards v. Lee's Adm'r, 265 Ky. 418 (1936) — damages awarded

1. Effect of procedure
2. Theories of cave ownership

a. Accession

i. Segmented
ii. Joint

b. Res nullius

i. Mouth owner
ii. Explorer

c. Regalian rights

3. What's the majority got going for it?

a. Expectations (mineral law)
b. The air rights cases distinguished
c. ?Psychology
d. Difficulties with the Logan theory

4. The remedy

a. Waiver of tort and suit in assumpsit
b. How the court got there

i. Equitable accounting
ii. Assumpsit for use and occupation
iii. Passive transmissibility — Hambly, Phillips
iv. Trade secrets

c. What would Lee have gotten if Edwards had done it right?

i. Accounting profits does not equal economic rent
ii. Variables
    where the 1/3 lay
    knowledge
    bargaining skill
iii. Difference between before and after

5. The Value of the Cave

Discount
8%
8%
8%
8%

Amount
$1000
$1000
$1000
$1000

Time
   1 yr.
  10 yrs.
  50 yrs.
100 yrs.

Equals
$926
$463
$   21
$     .45

Sum
$   926
$  6710
$12223
$12494

Sum from 0 to 100 of the PV $1000 p/a @ 8% = $12,494
Sum from 0 to infinity PV $1000 p/a @ 8% = $12,500