## Facts

- Newkirk hunted deer and wounded one about six miles from Buster’s house, then pursued it with dogs and tracked blood until night.
- Newkirk stopped the pursuit for the evening and resumed the next morning, eventually reaching Buster’s house.
- The deer had been shot at by another person shortly before Buster killed it.
- Newkirk’s dog seized the deer about the same time Buster cut the deer’s throat.
- Newkirk demanded the venison and the skin; Buster gave the venison but refused to give the skin.
- Newkirk sued in trover for the deer skin in a justice’s court and won nominal damages; Buster sought review by writ of error on certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether a hunter acquires a property interest in a wild animal by wounding and pursuit, sufficient to support trover, when the animal remains at liberty and is later killed by another.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Judicature of New York reversed the judgment for Newkirk.
- The court held Newkirk did not acquire property in the deer because it was not reduced to his power and control or deprived of its natural liberty.
- Because Newkirk lacked a property interest, he could not maintain trover for the skin.

## Legal Principles

- Property in wild animals (*ferae naturae*) is acquired by occupancy, not by mere pursuit.
- Wounding can constitute occupancy only if it deprives the animal of its natural liberty so that it is within the pursuer’s power and control.
- A pursuer who stops and abandons the chase, even if dogs continue, does not obtain property if the animal remains free.
- Trover requires the plaintiff to have a property interest in the chattel at the time of the alleged conversion.

## Conclusion

A hunter who wounds and intermittently pursues a wild animal does not obtain a possessory property right unless the animal is effectively brought under the hunter’s control; without such occupancy, trover for the animal (or its parts) cannot succeed against a later killer.


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