Case brief summary
A person only gains legal ownership of a wild animal by actually catching or capturing it, not just by chasing it.
Facts
Post was chasing a fox with his hounds on open land when Pierson, knowing about the chase, killed the fox himself and took it away.
Procedural history
A local justice's court ruled in favor of Post, and the case was brought up to the Supreme Court for review through a certiorari, which is a request for a higher court to review a lower court's decision.
Issue
Does chasing a wild fox with hounds give the hunter a legal property right in the fox strong enough to sue someone who kills and takes it first?
Holding
The court held that mere pursuit does not create ownership, so Post had no legal claim against Pierson for taking the fox.
Reasoning
The court relied on old legal writings stating that ownership of wild animals requires actual physical capture or control, not just chasing, and said this rule keeps disputes from getting out of hand.
Opinions
Majority (Tompkins): Mere pursuit of a wild animal does not create ownership, so Pierson was not liable for taking the fox Post was chasing.
Dissent (Livingston): Livingston argued that a hunter actively chasing a fox with hounds and likely to catch it should be treated as having possession, protecting hunters and farmers.