Bartlett v. Budd
Facts
The dispute concerned a whale found adrift in the ocean. The whale had an anchor attached to it, and the court treated the ownership of the whale as standing on the same footing as the ownership of that anchor. The respondents claimed a usage that an adrift whale belongs to the finder unless the first taker appears and claims it before the whale is cut in. The libellants' evidence asserted that this usage applies only when the only marks are harpoons or irons, not when there is an anchor or other sure sign of actual capture.
Issue
Whether a whale found adrift belonged to the finders under whaling usage, or instead remained the property of the original takers because it bore a definite mark of actual capture. The court also considered whether the case sounded in salvage or conversion.
Rule
A whale, being ferae naturae, does not become property until the taker has established firm and complete possession. Once possession is firm and complete, the right of property is clear and has all the characteristics of property. A usage awarding an adrift whale to the finder does not govern where the whale bears a definite mark of actual capture, such as an anchor or other sure sign of appropriation.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
Who has the better property claim to the whale?