美国财产法(4)

翻开美国原版的财产法著作,在谈到"占有"问题时,最先谈到的总是野生动物（Wild

animals） 的占有问题,根据罗马法的观点（Roman law veiw）,野生动物属于共有财产,不属于任何人（Belong

to no one ）,因此,对野生动物的占有属于财产的原始取得。根据优先占有原则,野生动物属于最先占有和控制的人。那么什么是占有和控制呢？先来看看美国财产法教材经常引用的三个经典案例（Leadin

cases）:

案例一:Pierson v. Post

Facts（案情）: P（plaintiff,指原告,下同） was hunting a fox on wild, uninhabited

land. He and his dogs were hunting and pursuing the fox. Knowing

that the fox was being hunted by P and within his view, D（defendent,指被告,下同）

killed the fox and carried it off.

ISSUE（问题）: who has ownership of the fox？

HELD（判决）: in view of the fox is not enough. The fact that the

land was wild and inhabited is important. The court looks at

a bunch of treaties to decide this case because there wasn't

much case law. One authority hold that actual bodily seizure

is not necessary to constitute possession of wild animals. The

mortal wounding of an animal or the trapping or intercepting

of animals so as to deprive them of their natural liberty will

constitute occupancy. However, here, P only shows pursuit. hence

there was no occupancy or legal right vested in P and the fox

became D's property when he killed and carried it off.

这是由纽约州最高法院终审的经典案例,事情发生在1805年,原告带着他的狗在野外的一块土地（uninhabited

land）上追逐一只狐狸,这一切,被告都看在眼里,他跑过去杀死了那只狐狸并将它取走,摆在法官面前的问题是,谁将拥有这只狐狸的所有权（who

has ownership of the fox）？法院最后认为:占有野生动物需要捕获该动物而不仅仅是追逐（The most

important thing to remember regarding possession of wild animals

is that the law requires capture rather than pursuit.）,当然,“捕获”并不一定要求从形体上控制住该动物（Actual

bodily seizure）,有时候,击中其要害（mortal wounding）也可以构成对野生动物的占有（possession

of wild animals）。

案例2:Ghen v. Rich

Facts: D purchased a whale at auction from man

who found it washed up on the beach. The whale had been killed

at sea by the crew of P's whaling ship which left P's identifying

bomb-lance in the animal. The custom was when the crew of a

whaling ship killed a whale using its identifying bomb-lance,

the ship's owner was considered the owner of that whale. The

finder ignored custom and sold whale.

Held: the court mentioned:

1. marks of appropriation enough

If the whale is killed and left ashore with the marks of appropriation,

it is the property of the captain.

2. Involuntary abandonment （anchor fails to hold）。 After initial

capture, possession was complete.

Anchor failed to hold in this case. Possession here was complete

because whale was killed and marked. Possession unequivocable

intention of appropriating for own use.

3. Notice to world is enough for possession

Whale escaped wounded and with the iron attached to it. Held

that first iron marking was enough. Goes to first captor. Ps

did all that it was possible to do here to make it theirs. This

particular trade usage was necessary to the survival of the

whaling industry, for no one would engage in whaling if it could

not be guaranteed the fruits of his labor.

Rule: When all that is practicable in order to secure a wild

animal is done, it becomes the property of the securer who has

thus exercised sufficient personal control over the wild animal.-

Marks of Appropriation here sufficient enough to establish a

property right.

这个案例发生在1881年,是说在捕鲸业,有一个行规（Custom）,鲸被人擒拿并拥有后,鲸的所有人通常以鲸身上的标记（bomb-lance）将自己所属的鲸和他人的鲸相区别,如果该印有标记的鲸逃跑并回归自然,为了保护行规,法官通常的态度是,所有人并不丧失所有权,他有权实施各种努力重新占有印有标记（bomb-lance）的鲸。

由于有行规的保护,在案例1中适用的捕获原则（Capture）在这里就不适用了。当然,这种行规也有它的不足之处（Disadvantages）:

1） custom changes over time

2） what about when a new person who does not know the custom

comes into the society？

案例3:Keeble v. Hickeringill

Facts: P contended D scared ducks away from his

pond resulting in damages. Here P is the owner of the land who

sets decoys to trap ducks. D came and chased them all away.

Issue: May recovery be had for the frightening of wild game

off one's property？

Held: Yes. Damages may be recovered for intentional frightening

of wild game off another's land. Although no title to the game

existed, P was using his land in a lawful manner. Court held

for public policy and fact- he had "constructive possession

of ducks".

这个事情发生1707年:原告有一个池塘,专门用来引诱和捕捉野鸭的,但被告却故意过来威吓和驱赶那些野鸭,于是原告就控告被告干扰了他谋取利益的权利,要求赔偿。被告认为对这些野鸭没有财产权,因为原告没"占有"他们,.原告能胜诉吗？答案是肯定的。在私人土地上行走的活动的野生动物,被推定为土地所有人占有（constuctive

possession）,所以原告诱捕野鸭和以此谋利并不为法律所禁止,任何妨害他这种生意（Business）的行为都要负损害责任。

总之,先占者（Prior possessor）原始取得野生动物所有权,此为野生动物所有权取得的原则。先占是对野生动物的最先占有。占有必须具备两个条件,一是指对野生动物的事实上,物理意义上的管理和控制；二者是占有人在主观上确有占为己有的目的。仅仅是对动物的追赶,尽管追赶者付出很大努力,只要追赶人未实际占有动物,或有他人已经先行占据了动物,追赶均不能成为追赶人取得所有权的依据,追赶者不能以其追赶行为对抗先占人。从上面的几个案例,我们可以看出这一原则也是有例外的