## Facts

- Plaintiffs found a swarm of wild bees in a tree located on defendant’s land.
- Plaintiffs marked the tree and notified the defendant of the bees and honey.
- Defendant later cut down the tree and took the honey for his own use.
- Plaintiffs sued in trover for the swarm of bees and for approximately 200 pounds of honey in the comb.
- Plaintiffs did not claim ownership of the land, the tree, or the bees.

## Issues

1. Whether a person who discovers wild bees in a tree on another’s land, marks the tree, and notifies the landowner acquires a property interest in the honey sufficient to maintain trover against the landowner.
2. Whether discovery, observation, and marking constitute “occupancy” or possession of wild bees or their honey as against the landowner.

## Decision

- The court ruled for the defendant landowner.
- Plaintiffs could not maintain trover because they had no property right in the honey.
- Plaintiffs’ acts (seeing bees enter the tree, hearing them near the tree, and marking the tree) did not amount to occupancy or possession.
- Marking the tree was a trespass and could not create rights against the landowner.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff in trover must prove a property interest and a right to immediate possession of the chattel at the time of conversion.
- Where the claimant has no interest in the land, tree, or wild animals involved, any asserted property right must rest on occupancy (possession), not mere discovery.
- Mere observation or knowledge of the location of wild animals, and symbolic acts such as marking, are insufficient to constitute occupancy.
- Acts that are wrongful invasions of the landowner’s rights (such as trespassory marking) cannot serve as the basis for acquiring property rights.
- Wild bees and honey located in a landowner’s tree belong to the landowner as part of the land-based rights, analogous to mines and minerals belonging to the owner of the soil.
- Claimed customs granting finders rights in resources on another’s land are not enforceable where they conflict with the landowner’s established property rights.

## Conclusion

Because plaintiffs neither owned the land or tree nor possessed the bees or honey through legally recognized occupancy, their discovery, marking, and notice did not create a property right in the honey, and trover could not lie against the landowner who took it.


Fisher v. Steward, 1 Smith (N.H.) 60 (N.H. Super. Ct. 1804)