Nah, it was about acquiring property by discovering it (which, obviously, doesn't really happen anymore) and how traditionally, marking the property in some way was an important part of the acquisition.
I scrawled "Do you have a fla-ag?" in the margins.
It happens all the time with chattel property. For example, I discovered a nickel in the elevator yesterday. It's mine now.
When you get into the law of prescriptive easements and adverse possession, you'll find that staking claims for real property still works sometimes, too.
My bad for not explicitly writing "real property."
And I'd like to remind everybody that I haven't even had my first class yet.
Sheesh.
CC who does know that squatting laws mean that staking claims for real property still works sometimes, and is certain it works in other instances which she will be made aware of over the next four years.
But this does not involve a flag or anything else marking said real property explicitly and "discovery" isn't the idea exactly.
When I took Property, I was baffled by the focus in the first several weeks on capture, salvage, and treasure. I seriously wondered what I'd gotten myself into.
(((When I took Property, I was baffled by the focus in the first several weeks on capture, salvage, and treasure)))
What gets me about the reading so far is that a case where two guys argued over ownership of a dead fox actually made it to a state Supreme Court.
People just had WAY too much free time in 1805, IMHO, the Supreme Court of New York included.
CC who surmises that the upshot of this case is that calling dibs does not instill property rights, but is still thinking "Dead fox? Seriously, Cheif Justice Tompkins?"
My favorite case of that sort was Veazie v. Dwinel, 50 Me. 479 (1862), establishing that in Maine you could sneak out in the middle of the night, blow up a dam, and then make the dam owner reimburse you for the cost of the explosives, as long as it was possible to float a log or a canoe down the river.
(It's property law because trespass is permissible on the banks of a watercourse, and the riparian owner has no right to obstruct the watercourse, as long as it's "navigable".)
Just remember that in NY, "Supreme Court" no longer refers to the highest court (which is the Court of Appeals) but actually is a trial-level court, which is why Law & Order is always happening in a "supreme court."
10 comments:
Executive transvestite?
Nah, it was about acquiring property by discovering it (which, obviously, doesn't really happen anymore) and how traditionally, marking the property in some way was an important part of the acquisition.
I scrawled "Do you have a fla-ag?" in the margins.
CC
It happens all the time with chattel property. For example, I discovered a nickel in the elevator yesterday. It's mine now.
When you get into the law of prescriptive easements and adverse possession, you'll find that staking claims for real property still works sometimes, too.
My bad for not explicitly writing "real property."
And I'd like to remind everybody that I haven't even had my first class yet.
Sheesh.
CC
who does know that squatting laws mean that staking claims for real property still works sometimes, and is certain it works in other instances which she will be made aware of over the next four years.
But this does not involve a flag or anything else marking said real property explicitly and "discovery" isn't the idea exactly.
When I took Property, I was baffled by the focus in the first several weeks on capture, salvage, and treasure. I seriously wondered what I'd gotten myself into.
That feeling never entirely went away! :-)
Good luck, CC. And enjoy yourself.
(((When I took Property, I was baffled by the focus in the first several weeks on capture, salvage, and treasure)))
What gets me about the reading so far is that a case where two guys argued over ownership of a dead fox actually made it to a state Supreme Court.
People just had WAY too much free time in 1805, IMHO, the Supreme Court of New York included.
CC
who surmises that the upshot of this case is that calling dibs does not instill property rights, but is still thinking "Dead fox? Seriously, Cheif Justice Tompkins?"
"No flag, no country."
My favorite case of that sort was Veazie v. Dwinel, 50 Me. 479 (1862), establishing that in Maine you could sneak out in the middle of the night, blow up a dam, and then make the dam owner reimburse you for the cost of the explosives, as long as it was possible to float a log or a canoe down the river.
(It's property law because trespass is permissible on the banks of a watercourse, and the riparian owner has no right to obstruct the watercourse, as long as it's "navigable".)
Just remember that in NY, "Supreme Court" no longer refers to the highest court (which is the Court of Appeals) but actually is a trial-level court, which is why Law & Order is always happening in a "supreme court."
Post a Comment