neon & helium: put taber & bartlett briefs face down in box on front table music: ray...

NEON & HELIUM:Put Taber & Bartlett Briefs Face

Down in Box on Front Table

MUSIC: Ray Charles & Friends

Genius Loves Company (Duets 2004)

DOG = KATIE (15)

ANNOUNCEMENTS

INFO MEMO #4 ONLINE• Info on my midterm

(coverage; format, etc.)• Exam-taking tips• Comments/Models for

Albers & Kesler briefs

PRE-MT OFFICE HOURS TOMORROW 2-6 pm

BRIEFING ASSMTS• Chlorine: Swift Brief

due Wednesday• Krypton: Ghen Brief

due next Friday• Shaw & Mullett briefs

ready for pick-up• Manning & Albers

briefs ready soon

ANNOUNCEMENTS

LUNCHESLUNCHES• OCTOBER 30 WILL BE

FINAL LUNCH • AVAILABLE SLOTS

POSTED ONLINE• E-MAIL ME TO SIGN UP

Questions

• on Midterm?• on Wolverine

Assignment?

HELIUM DQ57: Factual Differences between Albers and Kesler.

Why Might They Matter?

1. Kesler caretakers still in pursuit when fox killed; distance shorter; prior escape & recapture (did last week).




2. Kesler finder/defendant is not expert.





3. Kesler fox has no tattoo.





3. Kesler fox has no tattoo.

4. Kesler takes place in Idaho, not Colorado.

HELIUM DQ58: Differences in Reasoning

between Albers and Kesler.

Albers assumes the finder would win under the rule in Mullett, so it carves out

an exception to that rule. How does Kesler deal with the Mullett rule?

HELIUM DQ58: Differences in Reasoning between Albers and Kesler.

Kesler holds that the fox never returned to natural liberty because she …

“had formerly escaped and been recaptured; she had been out of her pen

but a short time; her owners were in pursuit [and] she was killed but a short

distance from her pen….”


Note what Kesler says about Albers:

“Stephens & Co. v. Albers, a case squarely in point, supports the

conclusion herein ....”

[i.e., NOT the reasoning.]


Albers: Returns pelt to OO by rejecting Mullett rule & creating new

rule for valuable animals v.

Kesler: Returns pelt to OO by applying Mullett rule


Note quote from treatise (p.44): “But even where the inference that escaping wild beasts have animum revertendi could probably not be indulged in fairly, as where the wild animals of a menagerie escape from their owner's immediate possession, it is hardly to be expected that the courts would hold that they would therefore belong to the first person who should subject them to his dominion.”


“ … where the wild animals of a menagerie escape from their owner's immediate

possession, it is hardly to be expected that the courts would hold that they would

therefore belong to the first person who should subject them to his dominion.

Treatise Adopts MANNING DictaTreatise Adopts MANNING Dicta

DQ56: SEVERABILITY OF PROPERTY RIGHTS

Both Albers and Kesler treat the question of the right to kill the fox as independent of the question of who owns it.

If the plaintiffs owned the foxes, why is it legally acceptable for a third party to kill them?


• Can have some rights w regard to an object without having all possible rights



• Common Examples:– Landlord-Tenant– Ratione Soli– Items Affected by Necessity



• Common Example: Necessity

– Neighbor can cut down your trees to limit spread of fire



• Common Example: Necessity

– Neighbor can cut down your trees to limit spread of fire

– You still own the cut wood.


• Here, court says it was OK for Dr. Jones to kill a fox owned by Kesler because he acted (for Mrs. White) as “a reasonably prudent person” would, “under reasonably apparent necessity, in the protection of his own property” (chickens).


• Kesler owns fox, but property rights limited to protect property of others

• Jones has right to kill fox, but no right to the carcass, which still belongs to Kesler

• Qs?

Kesler: Major Points

• Escaped wild animal Escaped wild animal not returned to not returned to natural libertynatural liberty if closely pursued with good if closely pursued with good possibility of recapture (different approach possibility of recapture (different approach than than AlbersAlbers))


• Escaped wild animal Escaped wild animal not returned to natural not returned to natural libertyliberty if closely pursued with good possibility of if closely pursued with good possibility of recapture (different approach than recapture (different approach than AlbersAlbers))

• Explicit relevance of pursuit, time, distanceExplicit relevance of pursuit, time, distance


• Escaped wild animal Escaped wild animal not returned to natural not returned to natural libertyliberty if closely pursued with good possibility of if closely pursued with good possibility of recapture (different approach than recapture (different approach than AlbersAlbers))

• Explicit relevance of pursuit, time, distanceExplicit relevance of pursuit, time, distance

• Severability of Property RightsSeverability of Property Rights

Pierson and Kesler : First Possession v. Escape

Same terms have different significance Same terms have different significance depending on context.depending on context.


Same terms have different significance Same terms have different significance depending on context: depending on context: PursuitPursuit

• Unowned AnimalUnowned Animal: Close pursuit : Close pursuit insufficientinsufficient to to createcreate ownership. ownership.

• Escaped AnimalEscaped Animal: Close pursuit : Close pursuit may be may be sufficientsufficient to to maintainmaintain ownership. ownership.


Same terms have different significance Same terms have different significance depending on context: depending on context: Natural LibertyNatural Liberty

• Unowned AnimalUnowned Animal: Close pursuit : Close pursuit insufficientinsufficient to to deprive deprive animal of NLanimal of NL

• Escaped AnimalEscaped Animal: Close pursuit : Close pursuit may be may be sufficientsufficient to to prevent prevent animal from animal from returningreturning to NL. to NL.

UNIT II: EXTENSION BY ANALOGY

§A. WHALING CASES

INTRODUCTION TO WHALING

• Admiralty Actions in Federal Court– Alleged torts took place on navigable

waters– Fed’l gov’t has exclusive juridiction over

maritime commerce (need for uniformity)– D.Mass. = United States District Court for

the District of Massachusetts


• Admiralty Actions in Federal Court

• Ships v. Boats



• Ships v. Boats

• Okhotsk Sea– Spelled differently in different cases



• Ships v. Boats

Okhotsk Sea– Spelled differently in different cases– Trip from New England (Around the Horn)



• Ships v. Boats

• Okhotsk Sea

• Value of Whales: Oil, Whalebone, Meat, Ambergris

OXYGEN: Taber v. Jenny: Statement of the Case

• Taber, … ?

• Sued Jenny, …

• For [Theory]

• Seeking [Remedy]


• Taber, presumably the owner of the Hillman, a ship whose crew killed a whale

• Sued Jenny, … ?

• For [Theory]



• Taber, presumably the owner of the Hillman, a ship whose crew killed a whale

• Sued Jenny, presumably the owner of the Zone, a ship whose crew found and took the whale’s carcass

• For [Theory] … ?



• Taber, presumably the owner of the Hillman, a ship whose crew killed a whale, sued Jenny, presumably the owner of the Zone, a ship whose crew found and took the whale’s carcass.

• Presumably For Conversion (See Bartlett)

• Seeking [Remedy] …?


• Taber, presumably the owner of the Hillman, a ship whose crew killed a whale, sued Jenny, presumably the owner of the Zone, a ship whose crew found and took the whale’s carcass presumably for conversion

• Seeking Damages for the Value of the Whale.

Structure of Taber & Bartlett

• Basic facts of both cases:

– Crew of 1st ship kills whale, marks and anchors it, leaves

– Whale found & taken by crew of 2d ship


• Basic facts of both cases: – 1st Crew kills whale, marks, anchors, leaves – Whale found & taken by crew of 2d ship

• Uncontested that Crew of 1st Ship Acquired Property Rights by Killing Whale (Kodak Moment)


• Basic facts of both cases: – 1st Crew kills whale, marks, anchors, leaves – Whale found & taken by crew of 2d ship

• Crew of 1st Ship Acquired Property Rights by Killing Whale

• Issue Like Escape Cases: Did Crew of 1st Ship Lose Property Rights by Leaving Whale Behind?

Taber: Factual Disputes & Findings

1) Was whale anchored when found by ship Z? Yes.

2) Had whale dragged its anchor when found by ship Z? No, at least not "to any considerable distance."

3) Was there a custom in whaling industry that if an anchored whale dragged its anchor, ownership can be lost? No evidence of such a custom.

CUSTOM in Whaling Cases

• Existence and Scope of Custom is Question of Fact

CUSTOM in Whaling Cases

• Existence and Scope of Custom is Question of Fact

• Whether to Treat Custom as Legally Binding is Question of Law (Discussed in the other whaling cases)

KRYPTON DQ59: Taber under Mullett

• Abandonment?

• Natural Liberty?

• Animus Revertendi?

• Together?

neon & helium: put taber & bartlett briefs face down in box on front table music: ray...

Documents

kesler fox

kesler caretakers

kesler finderdefendant

kesler deal

helium dq57

factual differences

mullett rule helium

neon helium