Possession is 9/10ths of the Law

[jeffT]

You’ve got me foxed here in your explanation. If Pierson caught the fox as history tells, why do you say “Pierson sued Post for the value of the fox”?. Surely Post sued Pierson?

[Mangetout]

Bwlink?

[DSYoungEsq]

Doesn’t seem to relate to any Straight Dope article I could find. Possibly intended as a reply to some thread already in the board…

Or maybe just a random. :smack:

[zut]

Here’s a possible candidate thread, and at least explains the subject matter of this thread: it’s about the “possession is 9/10ths of the law” phrase. Perhaps, since SDSAB Gfactor made the comment about Pierson v. Post, JeffT thought this forum would be the appropriate one to follow up in. Or is there a “possession is 9/10ths of the law” Mailbag column on the horizon?

EDIT: Duh on me. What does “possession is 9/10ths of the law” mean? (13-Feb-2007), report by Gfactor. Note the URL.

[Gfactor]

Right. Typo. Post sued Pierson. Sorry. I’ve requested an edit.

[Gfactor]

Welcome to the Straight Dope jeffT. And thanks for catching that error. I’m going to ask a moderator to change the thread title to “Possession is 9/10ths of the Law” so that others who want to comment on the report can find it easily. I hope that’s ok.

[Czarcasm]

@Gfactor

Welcome to the Straight Dope jeffT. And thanks for catching that error. I’m going to ask a moderator to change the thread title to “Possession is 9/10ths of the Law” so that others who want to comment on the report can find it easily. I hope that’s ok.

Good idea. Is done.

[Mangetout]

The article doesn’t show up when I try to search for it - is that normal?

[DSYoungEsq]

Whew. Now, question becomes, why didn’t the stupid search engine pop this one out? :o :mad: :smack:
Just tried it again. Pierson Post fox No results. :mad:

[Gfactor]

@DSYoungEsq

Whew. Now, question becomes, why didn’t the stupid search engine pop this one out?

The new articles aren’t searchable. For instance, if I search on my own name, I only get the following list of reports:

Straight Dope Staff Report: Is there such a thing as a diplomatic pouch?
URL: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mdiplomaticpouch.html
Straight Dope Staff Report: How are criminals prevented from profiting from their crimes?
URL: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcriminalprofit.html
Straight Dope Staff Report: Can cops really commandeer cars?
URL: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcommandeer.html
Straight Dope Staff Report: Do cemetery plots have expiration dates?
URL: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcemeteryrights.html
Straight Dope Staff Report: In international waters, are you beyond the reach of the law?
URL: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mlawofsea.html
Straight Dope Staff Report: Who invented tampons?
URL: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mtampons.html
Straight Dope Staff Report: What happens when someone " legally dead" shows up alive?
URL: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mlegallydead.html
Straight Dope Staff Report: What’s up with the 27th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
URL: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/m27amend.html
Straight Dope Staff Report: How much money do beggars make?
URL: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbegprofit.html
Straight Dope Staff Report: Who invented the grand jury?
URL: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mgrandjury.html

The more recent ones aren’t searchable, but you can find them under Recent Special Reports, here: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/index.html

The newest one doesn’t get listed there until it hits the front page (I think). You can only get a link to it by subscribing to the newsletter. Of course, the link was posted earlier in this thread.

[DSYoungEsq]

@Gfactor

The new articles aren’t searchable. For instance, if I search on my own name, I only get the following list of reports:

The more recent ones aren’t searchable, but you can find them under Recent Special Reports, here: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/index.html

The newest one doesn’t get listed there until it hits the front page (I think). You can only get a link to it by subscribing to the newsletter. Of course, the link was posted earlier in this thread.

[Johnny Carson]I did not know that.[/Johnny Carson]

[Common_Tater]

Always heard it as “posession is nine points of the law”…

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

It will be posted formally this coming Tuesday, 13 Feb.* People on the subscription list see it earlier, and anyone can go to the link, but it doesn’t become “public” (i.e., searchable in the Archives) until it’s actually posted.

• [sub]When Friday the 13th comes out on a Tuesday, it’s even more unlucky.[/sub]

[Oakminster]

*Getting property by taking it and holding onto it until the statute runs is called adverse possession. *

Isn’t adverse possession limited to real property, ie land?

[Gfactor]

@Oakminster

*Getting property by taking it and holding onto it until the statute runs is called adverse possession. *

Isn’t adverse possession limited to real property, ie land?

Nope. See, *e.g., *Redmond v. New Jersey Historical Society, 132 N.J.Eq. 464, 28 A.2d 189 (N.J. Ct. App. (1942):

By the great weight of authorities elsewhere, it is settled that “the law relating to adverse possession of chattels, while differing in some respects from that which relates to adverse possession of lands, bears a close analogy thereto. Under the statutes governing the subject title to chattels may be lost or acquired by adverse possession.” 2 C.J. p.285, § 634; Cf. 2 C.J.S. Adverse Possession, § 236; 1 Am.Jur. p. 845, § 96.

College of Law

O’Keeffe v. Snyder, 83 N.J. 478, 416 A.2d 862(1980) (discussing statute of limitations and adverse possession in a case brought by artist Georgia O’Keeffe over a painting that had been stolen in 1946).

Don’t you wish you could see: Adverse Possession of Personal Property: Clandestine Possession: Tacking on JSTOR (article titled “Adverse Possession of Personal Property: Clandestine Possession: Tacking”)

[Oakminster]

Well, I learned something new today. Thanks for that

[Gfactor]

No problem. The trick is that adverse possession is a doctrine about when the statute of limitations starts to run–it’s not really that special. Certain factors must coalesce in order to trigger the statute. Basically its about the claim being clear and public (not gonna bother looking up the verbal formula right now) enough for a court to impose constructive notice on the owner.

What the courts all talk about in this context is that it’s harder to trigger the statute with personal property because it can be concealed.

[Oakminster]

Property Law was a long time ago, and not one of my favorite courses. I seem to somewhat dimly recall the elements including: open & notrious, hostile, continuous, under claim of right. Or something like that.

Give ya a cookie to tackle the Rule Against Perpetuities…

Bonus points if you include a cite to a rumored case from California that says misunderstanding the Rule is not malpractice…

[Gfactor]

@Oakminster

Give ya a cookie to tackle the Rule Against Perpetuities…

Bonus points if you include a cite to a rumored case from California that says misunderstanding the Rule is not malpractice…

No interest is valid unless it must vest with 21 years after some life in being at the time of the creation of the interest.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=243190&highlight=perpetuities

Lucas v. Hamm, 56 Cal.2d 583 (Cal. 1961)

[Bricker]

Shall we now discuss the Slothful Executor and the Fertile Octagenarian?