## Facts

- Lodowick Post was hunting a fox on unowned, wild beach land with hounds under his control.
- Post found, started, and chased the fox, keeping it in view during the pursuit.
- Jesse Pierson, knowing Post was pursuing the fox, killed the fox in Post’s sight and carried it away.
- Post sued in trespass on the case, alleging his pursuit created a legally protected interest in the fox.
- The trial court entered judgment for Post; Pierson appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether hot pursuit of a wild animal (ferae naturae), without capture or physical control, creates a property right sufficient to support an action against an interloper who kills and takes the animal.
2. What acts constitute “occupancy” or possession necessary to acquire ownership of a wild animal.

## Decision

- The New York Supreme Court reversed the judgment for Post.
- The court held that pursuit alone gives no property right in a wild animal.
- Because Post had not reduced the fox to possession (or an equivalent form of control), Pierson’s killing and taking of the fox was not a legal injury to Post, even if discourteous.

## Legal Principles

- Wild animals are owned by no one until reduced to possession through occupancy.
- Mere pursuit, even with intent to capture and the animal in view, is insufficient to establish possession or property rights.
- Ownership is acquired by actual capture or by acts that deprive the animal of its natural liberty and place it under the pursuer’s control (commonly described as killing, or mortal wounding with continued pursuit, or effective ensnaring/circumvention preventing escape).
- A bright-line capture-based rule is favored to provide certainty and reduce disputes and litigation over competing claims based on proximity or effort.

## Conclusion

The court adopted a capture-based rule for first possession of wild animals: a hunter gains no property interest by pursuit alone, so a later actor who lawfully kills and takes the animal acquires ownership and incurs no civil liability to the pursuer.


Pierson v. Post, 3 Cai. R. 175 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1805)