Fisher v. Steward

Citation. 1 Smith 60

Powered by

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

Citation1 Smith 60

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiff sued the defendant for trover of the bees and honey plaintiff marked on defendant’s land.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

If a person discovers a wild animal on land that is owned by another person, that person does not have a property right to the animal.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

The curtilage includes the space of ground adjoining the dwelling house, used in connection therewith in the conduct of family affairs and for carrying on domestic purposes.

View Full Point of Law

Plaintiff Abraham Fisher discovered bees Defendant Jonas Steward land. Plaintiff notified the defendant of the bees. Defendant decided to cut use the honey. Plaintiff sued the defendant for trover of the bees and honey. Plaintiff did not claim property rights to defendant’s land, the tree, or the bees.

Issue.

If a person discovers a wild animal on land that is owned by another person, does that person have a property right to the animal?

Held.

No

Dissent.

N/A

Concurrence.

N/A

Discussion.

In this case, the plaintiff’s actions of marking the tree did not rise to the level of occupancy needed to have possession. In fact, the marking of the tree constitutes trespass. The bees and the honey belonged to the defendant in the same way that all mines and minerals belong to the owner of a land.