Property Test Outline
		Dukeminier & Krier:  Property  3rd Edition

1st Poss'n
  	1st in X, 1st in rt. (ancient rule)
Acquisition of Prop. by Capture
 	Pierson v. Post
		1) Pursuit of wild animals isnt prop. rt. / capture
		2) Possn=control + intent
		3) Soc. Goals
			1. Certainty of rules
			2. Peace & order
			3. Reduce # of litigations & foxes
			4. Reward labor & expectation
			5. Don't encourage bad practices
			6. Successful management of wildlife
		4) Rule of physical capture v. Rule of Rsn
			1. Rule of Physical Capture
				(1) reduce litigations & trxn costs b/c 
				predictable & clear so can 
				rely; eff.
				(2) Inflexible
			2.   Rule of Rsn
				(1) Flexible & sounds fair
				(2) Arbitrary decs w/higher trxn costs & disputes
			3.   Both rules agree on 1st in X princ. (1st 
			capture v. 1st pursuit)
 	Ghen v. Rich (Kill whale, U own it)
		1) Sharing not winning & losing
		2) Rule that matches the custom & tech. of the industry 
		discourage advancement of tech. though)
  	Keeble v. Hickeringill
		1) Even though no possn of ducks, Keeble won 4 soc. 
		policy rsns
			1. Encourage hard work & those who feed people
			2. Modernly, can put forth conservation of 
			resources goals
			3. Distinguish from Post Case where it was 2 kill 
			lots of foxes
			4. Endorses fair competitions(2 preserve peace), 
			labor, & assets
		2) Unchanged policies
			1. Punish jerks
			2. Mkt works by itself
			3. Wild life resouce management
			4. Protect Labor
  	2 imp. rules
		1) Prop. rts R relative
		2) Kid follows the mom

Acquisition of Prop. by Find
  	Armory v. Delamirie (chimney sweeps boy & jewel)
		1) Law protects possn of prop, finders, & bailors
		2) Titles
			1. Finders--good against all except the T.O. & 
			anybody else 
			who found it before
			2. T.O.--perfect paper title 2 prove w/ability 2 
			exercise physical 
			3. Titles R relative
		3) Prop. can have more than 1 owners
		4) Policies behind the dec.
			1. Certain so investment encouraged
			2. Preserve/protect peace, expectations & T.O.s
			3. Eff. resolution
		5) Remedies--injunction v. damages
  	Anderson v. Gouldberg (log thief stole from log thief)
		1) Protect all possn regardless of rt. / wrong
			1. Hard 2 distinguish; another proof so waste X & 
			2. Encourage lying if had 2 distinguish
  	Hannah v. Peel (Peel never entered the prop., Hannah found brooch)
		1) Owner of locus in quo doesn't possess lost prop. above 
		the soil when 
		the owner never entered the prop.
			1. Lacks intent of poss'n
		2) Constructive Poss'n
			1. If lived there, implied knowledge
			2. Sanctity of home would lead 2 constructive poss'n
		3) Resolve dif'ly if Hannah were trespassing b/c
			1. Not reward trespasser
			2. Create constructive poss'n if trespass
			3. Constructive & poss'n mean dif. things in dif. sit.'s
  	S. Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman (ring @ the bottom of the pool)
		1) Owner wins b/c employee limited in X & purpose & below soil
  	Elwes v. Brigg (boat underground)
		1) Can analogize minerals 2 boats so landlord gets it
  	Bridges v. Hawkesworth ($ on the floor)
		1) Finder keeps it b/c it was lost
		2) Lost=T.O. unintentionally parted w/it
  	McAvoy v. Medina (wallet in barbershop table)
		1) Owner keeps it b/c it was mislaid
		2) Mislaid=T.O. purposefully placed but forgot
		3) Abandoned=T.O. left it there on purpose
  	Floor v. Table--simple rule & flexible 2 indiv. cases

Adverse Poss'n
		1) Statute of lim. that restricts bringing axn in ct. 
		2) 4 adverse poss'n, C/A of ejectment runs 2 test title 2 
		the prop.
		3) Law cancels paper title 2 give new orig. title when 
		there's dif. owners 
		4 paper & poss'ry titles
		4) Advantages
			1. Beneficial use of the land
			2. Owner keeps an eye on the place
			3. Recog. & reward adverse owners expectations
			4. Timely resolution of disputes & throw away 
			stale claims
			5. Flexible & discretionary
		5) Disadvantages
			1. Encourages unwholesome cond.
			2. Reward theft & demoralize T.O.
			3. Waste socs asset on protection
			4. Discourage land sharing
			5. Accelerates dev. 
			6. Uncertain outcome so cant invest
  	Van Valkenburgh v. Lutz (travelled in another lot, farmed, stored)
		1) Adverse Poss'n by X line
		2) Subsequent meetings & lawsuit by Lutz
			1. Cant transfer rts of land w/o paper
			2. There was no intent / trxn transferring rts
			3. Dont recog. transfer of prop. by inadvertent pleading
		3) Elements of Doc. of Adverse Poss'n 
			1. Actual Entry giving exclusive possn (physical 
			unshared w/others)
			2. Open & notorious (everybody knows)
			3. Adverse & under claim of rt./ claim of title 
			(S/M irrelev.; 
			hostility; / good faith reqt)
			4. Cont. 4 the statutory per. (unbroken usage)
		4) Color of Title
			1. Claim based on defective written instrument
			2. Under claim of rt. 2 demonstrate good faith
			3. Creates constructive possn of the whole plot 
			based on actual 
			adverse poss'n of only a part
			4. If min. reqt, good 4 T.O.s of large tracts of 
			land because 
			reduces adverse poss'rs
		5) Actual poss'n is superior 2 constructive poss'n 
  	Howard v. Kunto (Everybody owned next doors deed)
		1) Policy goal
			1. Want people 2 keep their houses
		2) Cont. reqt of adverse poss'n is met b/c summer house 
		fn's as 
		occupying only during summerX
		3) Tack & privity
			1. Adverse poss'rs R allowed 2 tack X & inchoate 
			poss'n 2 each 
			other 4 complete adverse poss'n
			2. Trad. privity reqs evid. of pt'ing out 2 the 
			grantees but Ct. 
			ruled that here, only need rsbl cnxn/series of deeds
			3. Must have privity 2 tack
			4. For tacking, can transfer by deed, devise/ Ct. 
			order but 
			document that misdescribes doesn't transfer anything
		1) Statute of Lim. is tolled when statute runs against 
		minors, mentally ill, 
		& prisoners
		2) Can't tack disabilities

Acquisitions of Prop. by Gifts of Personalty
		1) Personalty is anything non-realty
		2) 1 of the ownership rts is 2 alienate things / transfer things
			1. Consideration--sale
			2. Donative--gifts of pers. prop.
  	Intervivos gift of pers. prop. (gifts btwn living)
		1) Intent
		2) Delivery
			1. Deed
			2. Actual--hand over 
			3. Symbollic--hand over a symbol of the thing
			4. Constructive--such as means of access
			5. Must use actual delivery if objs can B handed over
		3) Acceptance
		4) Policies 4 actual hand delivery
			1. B/C intent is hard 2 distinguish so evid. 4 
			soc. purposes by 
			2. Protect the donor by wrenching it & making 
			donor think twice
  	Newman v. Bost
		1) Gift causa mortis
			1. Gifts in contemplation of death & takes place 
			in deathbed
			2. Same elements of intent, delivery, & acceptance
			3. Ct. wants actual delivery b/c oral & cts dont 
			like oral wills
			4. Can have deathbed intervivos gifts
		2) Insurance policy couldve been handed over so no gift

Back to Law School Notes 1