## Facts

- In 1901, Graves, a dairy farmer, found an injured wild doe on his land, rehabilitated it, and kept it confined on his fenced property.
- Graves later acquired a buck, bred the deer, and over time maintained an enclosed deer herd; he also kept pheasants in confinement.
- When Graves first confined the doe, Washington law did not prohibit private possession of such game.
- Later legislation, including a 1913 game code, broadly declared game animals to be the property of the state and restricted private acquisition and control absent statutory authorization.
- County officials (the game warden and prosecuting attorney) asserted Graves’s continued possession violated the 1913 law, threatened prosecution, and sought to interfere with his keeping and disposition of the animals.
- Graves claimed he had acquired vested property rights through lawful possession and breeding, and that later legislation could not destroy those rights without compensation.
- The trial court enjoined the officials from prosecuting Graves and declared he could dispose of the pheasants as he chose; the officials appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether lawful capture, confinement, and breeding of wild game before restrictive statutes creates a protectable private property interest in the animals.
2. Whether the 1913 game code could be applied retroactively to divest such preexisting property rights without just compensation.
3. Whether equity may enjoin threatened criminal enforcement that would impair vested property rights based on an asserted retroactive application of the game code.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the injunction for Graves.
- The court held Graves acquired a lawful property interest in the confined deer and pheasants through capture, confinement, and breeding when the law did not prohibit such acts.
- The court construed the 1913 game code as prospective only and not as authorizing retroactive divestiture of lawfully acquired private property without compensation.
- Because Graves’s rights predated the restrictive legislation, county officials could not prosecute him or interfere with his continued possession and disposition of the enclosed animals under the 1913 act.

## Legal Principles

- While wildlife is held by the state in its sovereign capacity, a private person may obtain a qualified property right in wild animals by reducing them to possession through capture and confinement.
- Property rights lawfully acquired under existing law are vested and are not destroyed by later legislation absent clear authority consistent with constitutional limits.
- Statutes regulating wildlife will be construed, where fairly possible, to operate prospectively to avoid uncompensated taking or confiscation of established private property.
- Injunctive relief may be available to restrain threatened enforcement action by public officials when the enforcement would impair vested property rights under an invalid retroactive construction of a statute.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Graves’s right to keep and dispose of deer and pheasants he had lawfully confined and bred before later restrictions, construing the 1913 game code to apply only to future acquisition and possession so it would not retroactively divest vested private property without compensation.


Graves v. Dunlap, 87 Wash. 648, 152 P. 532 (Wash. 1915)