## Facts

- Frank Dapson and Ralph Daly hunted deer during the Massachusetts open season.
- Dapson shot and wounded a wild deer; Daly later shot the same deer.
- On conflicting evidence, the trial judge found Daly fired the shot that killed the deer.
- The judge was not satisfied that Dapson’s wound had reduced the deer to his control or that the deer was about to be deprived of its natural liberty.
- Daly retrieved the carcass and took it home.
- On the date of the hunt, Dapson had not obtained the statutorily required certificate of registration to hunt deer.
- Dapson brought an action of replevin to recover the deer carcass.

## Issues

1. Whether a person lacking the required hunting registration may maintain replevin for the carcass of a deer shot during open season when no statutory exception applies.
2. Whether wounding a wild animal, without reducing it to control, creates a property interest sufficient to support replevin, particularly when the plaintiff was not legally authorized to hunt.
3. Whether, under a general answer in replevin, the defendant may rely on the plaintiff’s lack of title arising from failure to comply with hunting-registration statutes.
4. Whether the appellate court should disturb the trial judge’s factual findings when supported by evidence.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment for Daly.
- The court held Dapson could not maintain replevin because he lacked the required hunting registration and therefore had no enforceable rights as a hunter of wild animals.
- The court upheld the trial judge’s findings that Daly fired the killing shot and that the deer had not been reduced to Dapson’s control.
- The court ruled Daly could rely on Dapson’s lack of title under a general answer because proof of title is required for replevin.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff must prove title or a legally recognized special property interest to maintain replevin.
- A person who has not obtained the statutorily required hunting registration has no enforceable right to claim game taken during open season outside statutory exceptions.
- Property in animals ferae naturae arises only when a person, being legally authorized, deprives the animal of its natural liberty and acquires control of it.
- In replevin, a defendant may contest the plaintiff’s title under a general answer; illegality that prevents title from arising defeats the plaintiff’s prima facie case.
- Appellate courts will not set aside a trial judge’s factual findings if the record contains evidence warranting them.

## Conclusion

Because Dapson lacked the required hunting registration and had not reduced the deer to possession or control, he failed to establish lawful title to the carcass; therefore, replevin would not lie against Daly, and the judgment for Daly was affirmed.


Dapson v. Daly, 153 N.E. 454 (Mass. 1926)