Case Name: Buster against Newkirk
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1822-05
Citations: 20 Johns. 75
Docket Number: 
Parties: Buster against Newkirk.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 20
Pages: 75–76

Head Matter:
Buster against Newkirk.
Though pro-petty in an animal, fercc naturce9 may be acquired by occupancy, or by so wounding it, as to bring it within the power and control of the pursuer ; yet if, afterwounding the animal, the party continues the pursuit until evening, and then abandons it, though his dogs continue the chase, he acquires no property in it.
IN ERROR, on certiorari to a Justice’s Court.
■Newkirk brought an action of trover against Buster for a deer skin. It appeared that N. was hunting deer on the 31st of December, 1819, and had wounded one, about six miles from B.’s house, which he pursued with his dogs. He followed the track of the deer, occasionally discovering Wood, until night; and on the next morning resumed the pursuit, until he came to B.’s house, where the deer had been killed the evening before. The deer had been fired at by another person, just before he was killed by B., and fell, but rose again, and ran on, the dogs being in pursuit, and the plaintiff’s dog laid hold of the deer about the same time, when B. cut the deer’s throat. N. demanded the venison and skin of B., who gave him the venison, but refused to let him have the skin. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for seventy-five cents, on which the Justice gave judgment.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The principles decided in the case of Pierson v. Post, (3 Caines' Rep. 175.) are applicable here. The authorities cited in that case, (establish the position, that property can be acquired in animals ferae naturae, by occupancy only; and that, in order to constitute such an occupancy, it is sufficient if the animal is deprived of his natural liberty, by wounding, or otherwise, so that he is brought within the power and control of the pursuer. In the present case, the deer, though wounded, ran six miles j and the defendant in error had abandoned the pursuit that day, and the deer was not deprived of his natural liberty, so as to be in the power or under the control of JV. He, therefore, cannot be said to have had a property in the animal, so as to maintain the action. The judgment must be reversed.
Judgment reversed.