People can acquire property through discovery and conquest. If you possess something first, you can have rights in it.
The Case: Popov v. Hayashi
There is an interesting case on this point: Popov v. Hayashi. At a baseball park, Barry Bonds hit a ball that landed in the right-field stands. A fan named Popov caught the ball first, but unfortunately dropped it. A melee ensued, and a man named Hayashi came up with the ball. Popov sued him, claiming that the ball was his.
The Court's Decision
According to traditional principles of possession, whoever possesses something first owns it. But that alone is not enough to conclude that Popov achieved full possession of the ball, since he dropped it. However, he had taken significant steps toward gaining possession, which gave him a pre-possessory interest in the property.
Therefore, even though Popov never gained full possession, his claim to the ball should be upheld to the extent of that interest. Likewise, even though Mr. Hayashi did gain control of the ball, his claim is limited by Popov's pre-possessory interest. So the judge ruled that both parties had an equal and undivided interest in the ball, and that the ball had to be sold and the proceeds divided equally between them.
My Comment
For me, it is hard to understand the legal basis for a pre-possessory interest. A possessory right originates from the actual fact that the possessor has control over the property. But a pre-possessory interest is granted when a person tries to acquire full control of the property and fails. Therefore, a pre-possessory interest cannot be derived from the possessory right. Where does it come from?
Some might say that this interest originates from a person's effort to obtain the property. But why should the law treat mere effort as a basis for a right? It seems like the court granted a right similar to possession. But the problem is thatPopov never met the requirements for possession.
Furthermore, the court stated: "Where an actor undertakes significant but incomplete steps to achieve possession of a piece of abandoned personal property and the effort is interrupted by the unlawful acts of others, the actor has a legally cognizable pre-possessory interest in the property." This suggests that a pre-possessory interest arises whenever a person is deprived of property by a wrongdoer.
According to this sentence, it looks like a claim based on someone else's fault, which looks like something closer to a tort remedy. But Hayashi acquired possession in an entirely legitimate way. He had full control over the property with the intent to possess it. Therefore, he held a legitimate right. So I cannot understand why Hayashi's legitimate right should be restricted by Popov's claim, which never met the requirements for possession and is therefore not a legitimate right at all.