ELEMENTS EH LOGISTICS

1
ELEMENTS EH LOGISTICS

• INFO MEMO 3 ONLINE
• COMMENTS RE MANNING MULLETT BRIEFS
• COMMENTS RE ASSMT I (PRIOR YEARS)
• OFFICE HOURS THIS WEEK
• WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON CANCELLED
• ADD THURSDAY 2-5 pm
• UNIT II MATERIALS POSTED TOMORROW WITH
  ASSIGNMENTS FOR 10/5-10/12
• IRON FOR WED WELL DO KESLER BRIEF IN SOME
  DETAIL

2
DQ50 (Tungsten) ALBERS under MANNING factors

• TAMING
• Evidence? Fox took food from Hand
• Court says Semi-Domesticated
• Enough?

3
DQ50 (Tungsten) ALBERS under MANNING factors

• TAMING
• Fox took food from Hand
• Court says Semi-Domesticated
• Evidence of Labor or Personal Connection?

4
DQ50 (Tungsten) ALBERS under MANNING factors

• TAMING
• Fox took food from Hand
• Court says Semi-Domesticated
• Evidence of Labor or Personal Connection? Little
  (though likely more financial investment than in
  Manning)

5
DQ50 (Tungsten) ALBERS under MANNING factors

• (2) MARKING
• Evidence? Numbers Tattooed in Ears
• How Strong is Mark?

6
DQ50 (Tungsten) ALBERS under MANNING factors

• (2) MARKING
• Evidence? Numbers Tattooed in Ears
• How Strong is Mark?
• 335 Clearly Man-Made (Maybe Not 1)
• Hard for Non-Expert to Find?
• Unlikely to Disappear
• Identifies Owner
• Industry Practice
• Other Facts Giving Notice to Finder?

7
DQ50 (Tungsten) ALBERS under MANNING factors

• (2) MARKING
• Evidence? Numbers Tattooed in Ears
• How Strong is Mark?
• Other Facts Giving Notice to Finder?
• Type of Fox Unknown in Area
• Industry Well-Known in Area

8
DQ50 (Tungsten) ALBERS under MANNING factors

• (2) MARKING Blackstone, quoted in Albers p.38
  If a deer, or any wild animal reclaimed, hath
  a collar or other mark put upon him, and goes and
  returns at his pleasure ... the owner's property
  in him still continues, and it is not lawful for
  any one else to take him but otherwise, if the
  deer has been long absent without returning.

9
DQ50 (Tungsten) ALBERS under MANNING factors

• (3) TIME DISTANCE
• Animal Owned for 2 Weeks Before Escape
• Animal Ran 6 Miles Before Being Killed
• Animal Killed1 Day After Escape
• Unknown Time Before O Discovered Pelt
• Significance?

10
DQ50 (Tungsten) ALBERS under MANNING factors

• TAMING Less than Manning
• MARKING Tattoos Probably Better than Crest in
  Manning
• (3) TIME DISTANCE
• Prior to Escape Less than Manning
• After Escape Similar to Manning
• Overall may turn on Notice to Reasonable Finder
  (cf. organ-grinder monkey menagerie animals)

11
LOGIC OF ALBERS

1. DOMESTICATED OR WILD
2. ADDRESSING PRIOR AUTHORITY
3. WHAT THE CASE HOLDS
4. CRITIQUE

12
LOGIC OF ALBERS DOMESTICATED OR WILD

• Parties Presumption 2 Available Rules
• Rule for Wild Animals (Mullett/Blkstone) under
  which finder (D) wins
• Rule for Domestic Animals under which Original
  Owner (P) wins
• Leads to sequence of arguments about whether fox
  is wild or domestic

13
LOGIC OF ALBERS DOMESTICATED OR WILD

• DQ52d (Nickel) p.38 Counsel for defendant
  insists that whether an animal be wild or
  domestic must be determined from the species, not
  from the individual.
• Why would D argue this?
• What is courts response?

14
LOGIC OF ALBERS DOMESTICATED OR WILD

• p.39 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.

15
LOGIC OF ALBERS DOMESTICATED OR WILD

• DQ52c (Nickel) p.37 Plaintiff argued that foxes
  are taxable in this state, hence the common-law
  rule as to domesticated animals applies.
• Why would P argue this?
• Court doesnt address directly what is courts
  likely response?

16
LOGIC OF ALBERS DOMESTICATED OR WILD

• p.39 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, consistent with
  requiring individualized determination.

17
LOGIC OF ALBERS

1. DOMESTICATED OR WILD
2. ADDRESSING PRIOR AUTHORITY
3. WHAT THE CASE HOLDS
4. CRITIQUE

18
LOGIC OF ALBERS ADDRESSING PRIOR AUTHORITY

• p.39 Discussion of legal connection between tort
  liability and property rights
• Well come back to with Kesler

19
LOGIC OF ALBERS ADDRESSING PRIOR AUTHORITY

• DQ51 Manning (TUNGSTEN)
• How does Albers characterize the holding in
  Manning?

20
LOGIC OF ALBERS ADDRESSING PRIOR AUTHORITY

• DQ51 Manning (TUNGSTEN)
• How does Albers characterize the holding in
  Manning?

21
LOGIC OF ALBERS ADDRESSING PRIOR AUTHORITY

• DQ51 Manning (TUNGSTEN)
• How does Albers characterize the holding in
  Manning? One return Animus Rev.
• Is that a fair characterization?

22
LOGIC OF ALBERS ADDRESSING PRIOR AUTHORITY

• DQ51 Manning (TUNGSTEN)
• Albers Manning One return Animus Rev.
• Court is trying to reconcile Manning with the
  common law/Mullett rule.
• Other ways to do?

23
LOGIC OF ALBERS ADDRESSING PRIOR AUTHORITY

• DQ51 Manning (TUNGSTEN)
• Court is trying to reconcile Manning with the
  common law/Mullett rule.
• Could say instead
• Canary was domesticated not wild
• Canary never retd to natl lib.

24
LOGIC OF ALBERS ADDRESSING PRIOR AUTHORITY

• DQ51 Manning (TUNGSTEN)
• Court is trying to reconcile Manning with the
  common law/Mullett rule.
• Note that Georgia case and NY case do not have to
  agree OK if not reconcilable.

25
LOGIC OF ALBERS ADDRESSING PRIOR AUTHORITY

• p.38-39 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.

26
LOGIC OF ALBERS ADDRESSING PRIOR AUTHORITY

• pp.38-39 One modification of the rule would
  permit the owner to recover if he could identify
  his property. 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.
• ZINC DQ53 To whom is it unjust? Why?

27
LOGIC OF ALBERS ADDRESSING PRIOR AUTHORITY

• p.39 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.

28
LOGIC OF ALBERS ADDRESSING PRIOR AUTHORITY

• DQ52a (NICKEL) Campbell (Ontario)
• Who do you think won the case?
• What is the significance of the Ontario statute
  correcting the case?