Haslem v. Lockwood

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut · 1871 · Property

Propertyacquisitionabandoned propertymanurelabor theoryoccupancyabandonmentpersonal property

Facts

Manure from animals driven by travelers was scattered on a public highway, and the plaintiff scraped it into heaps, thereby changing its condition and increasing its value. The finding stated that removing the manure and scrapings would improve the appearance and health of the borough. Before the plaintiff removed the heaps, the defendant seized and appropriated them to his own use. The defendant claimed the plaintiff had neither possession nor an immediate right to possession.

Issue

Whether manure dropped by travelers' animals on a highway is personal property subject to acquisition by occupancy, and whether a person who gathers it into heaps and leaves it for a reasonable time to obtain means of removal retains a possessory right superior to a subsequent wrongdoer.

Rule

Manure dropped by travelers' animals upon a highway is personal property, not part of the realty under the farm-manure rule. When such property has been abandoned and another person peaceably gathers it, materially enhances its value by labor, and leaves it only a reasonable time to procure necessary means of removal, that person has a sufficient right to immediate possession as against a mere wrongdoer during that reasonable time.

🔒

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

On a public street in Hartford, wagon horses used by passing delivery drivers leave droppings over the course of a day. Lena Ortiz sweeps the droppings into piles at the curb so she can haul them away later, and Owen Pike claims the material was part of the land all along and could not be privately possessed.

Which is the strongest argument under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority limited the manure-as-realty rule to manure produced in the usual course of husbandry on a farm for agricultural purposes. Droppings left by animals traveling on a highway or street are different: they do not benefit the land and may be a nuisance. Thus they are treated as personal property capable of acquisition by occupancy.