Download
Download Presentation
Loading in 2 Seconds...
LUNCH TODAY @ 12 :05 Allen Bhimani 3. Chung 4. Massey 5. McGivern 6. Olsen 7. Retenauer . LUNCH THURS @ 12:25 1. Barnes 2. Cappell 3. Hearn 4. Joyner 5. Parkins 6. Smittick 7. Tuchman .
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.
While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Allen
Bhimani
3. Chung
4. Massey
5. McGivern
6. Olsen
7. Retenauer
LUNCH THURS @ 12:25
1. Barnes
2. Cappell
3. Hearn
4. Joyner
5. Parkins
6. Smittick
7. Tuchman
The Essential Louis Armstrong: Disc 1 (Recordings 1925-30)
The original owner retains property rights in an escapedanimal f.n.
[that had been owned for two yrs]
[that responded to its name]
[that has escaped and returned before]
[that had distinctive crest]
[that had been missing for only five days]
[that owner located day after it was found]
DQ44: Last Time
The law of Georgia is, that to have property in animals, birds and fishes which are wild by nature, one must have them within his actual possession, custody or control, and this he may do by taming, domesticating, or confining them.
To say that if one has a canary bird, mocking bird, parrot, or any other bird so kept and it should accidentally escape from its cage to the street, or to a neighboring house, that the first person who caught it would be its owner, is wholly at variance with our views of right and justice.
For Sweet, probably not an accident!
Probably means owner did not deliberately allow bird to fly free
To say that if one has a canary bird, mocking bird, parrot, or any other bird so kept and it should accidentally escape from its cage to the street, or to a neighboring house, that the first person who caught it would be its owner, is wholly at variance with our views of right and justice.
Likely true here; if so, why relevant?
To say that if one has a canary bird, mocking bird, parrot, or any other bird so kept and it should accidentally escape from its cage to the street, or to a neighboring house, that the first person who caught it would be its owner, is wholly at variance with our views of right and justice.
Likely true here; if so, why relevant?
The original owner retains property rights in an escapedanimal f.n.
[that had been owned for two yrs]
[that responded to its name]
[that has escaped and returned before]
[that had distinctive crest]
[that had been missing for only five days]
[that owner located day after it was found]
[that was captured a short distance away]
To say that if one has a canary bird, mocking bird, parrot, or any other bird so kept and it should accidentally escape from its cage to the street, or to a neighboring house, that the first person who caught it would be its owner, is wholly at variance with our views of right and justice. WHY?
(This is rhetoric, not explanation. You need to do better.)
To say that if one has a canary bird, mocking bird, parrot, or any other bird so kept and it should accidentally escape from its cage to the street, or to a neighboring house, that the first person who caught it would be its owner, is wholly at variance with our views of right and justice. WHY?
To hold that the traveling organist with his attendant monkey, if it should slip its collar, and go at will out of his immediate possession and control, and be captured by another person, that he would be the true owner and the organist lose all claim to it, is hardly to be expected; or that the wild animals of a menagerie, should they escape from their owner's immediate possession, would belong to the first person who should subject them to his dominion.
WHY THESE ANIMALS?
To hold that the traveling organist with his attendant monkey, if it should slip its collar, and go at will out of his immediate possession and control, and be captured by another person, that he would be the true owner and the organist lose all claim to it, is hardly to be expected; or that the wild animals of a menagerie, should they escape from their owner's immediate possession, would belong to the first person who should subject them to his dominion. WHY THESE ANIMALS?
Wild Animals of a Menagerie
Again, inconsistent with simple holding that OO retains any tamed animal
To hold that the traveling organist with his attendant monkey, if it should slip its collar, and go at will out of his immediate possession and control, and be captured by another person, that he would be the true owner and the organist lose all claim to it, is hardly to be expected; or that the wild animals of a menagerie, should they escape from their owner's immediate possession, would belong to the first person who should subject them to his dominion.
OO retains ppty rts in an escapedanimal f.n.:
[that had been owned for two yrs]
[that responded to its name]
[that has escaped and returned before]
[that had distinctive crest]
[that had been missing for only five days]
[that owner located day after it was found]
[that was captured a short distance away]
Lots of Broader Variations Possible
Squirrel hypo designed to get you to play with the holding in the way that litigators do, trying to find a plausible version helpful to their client’s position.
Squirrel hypo designed to get you to play with the holding in the way that litigators do, trying to find a plausible version helpful to their client’s position.
Start by determining which facts of your current case seem helpful and which seem harmful to your client under Manning.
Owned for 3 Months
Responds to Name
Comfortable w Humans*
Identifying Markings
Helpful to B
Squirrel Travels “Across Town”*
No Prior Return
2 Months Before Found*
Markings Not Man-Made (apparently)*
Mapping the Holding of MANNING: DQ49
Squirrel hypo designed to get you to play with the holding in the way that litigators do, trying to find a plausible version helpful to their client’s position.
Try to craft holding that emphasizes helpful facts and minimizes harmful ones.
Sample for Alaina (narrow version; includes almost all helpful facts):
OO retains property rights in an escaped animal f.n.
Sample for Alaina (broader versions; focuses on a few key facts):
OO retains property rights in an escaped animal f.n. that is…
Sample for Alaina (a little too broad):
OO retains property rights in an escaped animal f.n. if it accidentally escapes from their immediate possession and comes under the control of another person.
Good idea to use language from case BUT:
Sample for Brandon (narrow version; includes almost all helpful facts):
OO retains property rights in an escaped animal f.n.:
Sample for Brandon: (Focusing on Time as Key Element):
OO retains property rights in an escaped animal f.n. that had been possessed by the OO prior to escape for an amount of time substantially greater than the amount of time the animal was at large and substantially greater than the amount of time that the animal was possessed by the finder.--Douglas (with some editing )
Abandoned: Maybe
Animus Rev. No
Ret’d to NL Yes
Manning
No
Maybe
Maybe
Mullett v. Manning :MullettFactors
Tamed:
Marked.
Time
Owned
Out
Till Found
Distance
Manning
Yes
Man-Made
2 Yrs
4 Days
5 Days
Same Town
Mullett v. Manning :ManningFactors
Tamed: No Info
Marked; Blemishes
Time
Owned Unclear (Less)
Out 2 Weeks
Till Found 1 Year
Distance70 Miles
Manning
Yes
Man-Made
2 Years
4 Days
5 Days
Same Town
Mullett v. Manning :ManningFactors
Abandoned: Maybe
Animus Rev. No
Ret’d to NL Yes
Tamed: No Info
Marked; Blemishes
Time
Owned Unclear (Less)
Out 2 Weeks
Till Found 1 Year
Distance70 Miles
Manning
No
Maybe
Maybe
Yes
Man-Made
2 Years
4 Days
5 Days
Same Town
Mullett v. Manning :Better Case for OO (DQ47)
Lesorgen Formulation #1
OO loses property rights in an escaped animal when the animal, without an intention to return, can provide for itself and is in its state of natural liberty.
Lesorgen Formulation #2
OO retains ownership in an escaped wild animal if he can show a substantial connection between himself and the wild animal through taming, an intent to return, or any other acts of dominion for a sufficient time of possession, and the owner has not abandoned his search once the animal has escaped.
OO retains ownership in an escaped wild animal if he can show a substantial connection between himself and the wild animal through taming, an intent to return, or any other acts of dominion for a sufficient time of possession, and the owner has not abandoned his search once the animal has escaped.
OO retains ownership in an escaped wild animal if he can show a substantial connection between himself and the wild animal through taming, an intent to return, or any other acts of dominion for a sufficient time of possession, and the OO has not abandoned his search once the animal has escaped.
Info Memo #3 Posted
Less than in Manning. Enough?
If unsure, check for reason behind rule
Evidence of Labor or Personal Connection?
Not much, so unlikely to be considered tamed.
How strong is mark?
Other Facts Giving Notice to Finder?
Significance?
Overall result unclear; might argue it’s like escaped menagerie animal, so back to OO
Parties’ Presumption: 2 Available Rules
Leads to sequence of arguments about whether fox is wild or domestic
DQ52d p.40: “Counsel for defendant insists that whether an animal be wild or domestic must be determined from the species, not from the individual.”
D wants Mullett rule, so wants animal to be wild. Argues that all foxes are wild.
Court says no; nature of animus rev. indicates that you look at individual animals
p.41: “Nor has birth in captivity anything to do with the question. A wild cat may be just as wild if born in a cage as if born on a mountainside.”
P must have argued that animal is “domesticated” if born in captivity (so fox here is domesticated).
Court disagrees in this passage.
DQ52c p.39: Plaintiff argued that “foxes are taxable in this state, hence the common-law rule as to domesticated animals applies….”
Gist of P’s argument is “You are making me pay taxes on foxes as a valuable asset; only fair to treat them as domesticated animals (which are similarly taxed).
Court doesn’t address directly, but same is likely true for zoo animals, and tax system is separate legal structure not binding here
p.41: “Mr. Black's definition of domestic animals as ‘such as contribute to the support of a family or the wealth of a community’ would include all fur-bearing animals held in captivity, wherever born or however wild.”
Again, P must have raised this definition as including fur foxes. The court rejects the definition as too inclusive, thus inconsistent with requiring individualized determination.
p.41: Discussion of legal connection between tort liability and property rights:
We’ll come back to with Kesler
pp.40-41: These authorities are rather confusing than enlightening, and even suggest that one modification of the rule would permit the owner to recover if he could identify his property. We know of no case so applying it (save those dealing with bees), and the injustice of its application to one who captures or kills ordinary wild animals which have escaped from restraint and returned to their natural habitat is apparent. “Even” means?
pp.40-41: “[O]ne modification of the rule would permit the owner to recover if he could identify his property. … [T]he injustice of its application to one who captures or kills ordinary wild animals which have escaped from restraint and returned to their natural habitat is apparent.”
DQ53: To whom is it unjust? Why?
p.41: “We take no notice of” cases involving theft from traps & cages and theft of dogs because they are “wholly inapplicable.”
Orig. Owner would win all these cases, so P must have raised them.
“Wholly inapplicable” because they involve either domestic animals or animals completely within control of owner.
DQ52a: Campbell (Ontario)
Who do you think won the case?
What is the significance of the Ontario statute “correcting” the case to the logic of Albers?
