The project promptly went off the rails when Harry Bigelow ended up restating Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld's ideas (e.g., the bundle of rights) instead of American property law, and his successors lacked the brilliance needed for such an ambitious project.
[1] William Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, wrote that the essential core of property is the right to exclude.
[1] The "bundle of rights" view was prominent in academia in the 20th century and remains influential today in American law.
The issue before the court is whether Post exercised enough control over the fox, a wild animal, to become first possessor.
The majority of the court cited the Justinian Code and various jurists, before concluding that possession required certain control.
[10] The dissenting opinion would require only a reasonable prospect of capture, close pursuit in the case would satisfy the rule.
[10] The dissent raises the issue of incentives, arguing that the "reasonable prospect" rule would incentivize hunters to hunt foxes, which are considered pests.
[13] However, new types of land ownership is generally disallowed, under the numerus clausus principle, unless they are introduced by legislation.
[14] Fee simple refers to a present interest in the land, which continues indefinitely into the future.
[16] In most states, in a tenancy in common, co-tenants each have a theoretical right to possess the whole property.
[16] However, if they cannot work out how to divide the use of the property, one co-tenant can prevent another from taking possession, but must be liable to the ousted tenant for the rent.