FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By in Oct 2012

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 2,100 times | Saved to 396 briefcases

Case References

Style of causeRatio

Popov v Hayashi, 2002 WL 31833731, (Cal Superior Ct)

There are three criteria of possession:
** 1 -the object must be lost or abandoned
** 2 -intention to control to the exclusion of others
** 3 -actual physical control
*** If #2 and #3 are met, but actual physical control is prevented by an illegal act, courts may find a pre-possessory right based on equity.
*** physical control may also vary by context, the community of practice, and the object itself.

Pierson v Post (1805), 3 Cai R 175, 2 Am Dec 264 (NY)

Possession requires that a person have sufficient control over the object. Control does not necessarily mean "complete dominion." Rather, control is subject to the particular context and type of property:
** Mere pursuit of an wild animal does not constitute a legal right to it.
** To acquire possession, the person must mortally wound the animal.

The Tubantia [1924] P 78, [1924] All ER 615

Possession requires that a person have sufficient control over the object. Control does not necessarily mean "complete dominion." Rather, control is subject to the particular context and type of property:
** Physically demarcating the area under which a wreck is found, accessing the wreck and sending in an exploration team constitutes sufficient possession in the case of a sunken shipwreck


This Property Law decision tree identifies how to analyse a basic possession problem. The diagram is primarily based on Popov v Hayashi. Other cases considered include: Pierson v Post; and The Tubantia.




Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.