Case Name: Pierson v. Post
\nPlaintiff\/Appellee: Post
\nDefendant\/Appellant: Pierson
\nCitation: 2 Am. Dec. 264 (N.Y. 1805)<\/p>\n
Issue:<\/strong> Whether a trespass was committed when Pierson killed and carried off the fox that was being hunted by Post.<\/p>\n Key Facts:<\/strong> Post was hunting a fox with dogs and hounds and while he was hunting the fox, Pierson, who knew that Post was hunting, killed and carried off the fox.<\/p>\n Procedural History:<\/strong> The first court found for the plaintiff, Post.<\/p>\n Holding:<\/strong> A trespass was not committed although the conduct of Pierson was uncourteous towards Post, his act did not produce an injury or damage for which a legal remedy can be applied.<\/p>\n Reasoning:<\/strong> Based off Barbeyrac, the actual bodily seizure is not necessary constitute possession of wild animals; however, pursuit alone is insufficient to constitute possession.<\/p>\n Judgment<\/strong>: The second court reversed the decision.<\/p>\n Dissent:<\/strong> The dissenting opinion stated that property in animals may be acquired without bodily touch or manucaption, provided the pursuer be within reach, or have a reasonable prospect of taking, what he has thus discovered an intention of converting to his own use.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Case Name: Pierson v. Post Plaintiff\/Appellee: Post Defendant\/Appellant: Pierson Citation: 2 Am. Dec. 264 (N.Y. 1805) Issue: Whether a trespass was committed when Pierson killed and carried off the fox that was being hunted by Post. Key Facts: Post was hunting a fox with dogs and hounds and while he was hunting the fox, Pierson, … <\/p>\n