Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]

Haslem v. Lockwood | 37 Conn. 500 (1871)

Haslem versus Lockwood is a case about piles of poop. You may laugh, but remember that in the 1800s, farmers relied on animal manure to replenish nutrients in their soil. Horse poop was brown gold. So, it makes sense that a person who thought his manure had been stolen would want his day in court.

The horses tied to the railing next to the public park in Stamford produced plentiful manure that accumulated in the street. Thomas Haslem sent two men to the park one evening to collect this manure. The men spent two hours raking the manure into heaps. They then went home, intending to come back the next day to collect the manure.

The next morning, William Lockwood came upon the neat piles of manure. There was no sign of who had assembled the heaps, or whether they were coming back for them. The Stamford warden said he hadn’t given anyone permission to collect the manure. Concluding that the manure was abandoned, Lockwood took it to his own land.

Haslem then arrived and discovered that the manure he’d had raked up had disappeared. After figuring out where the poop had gone, Haslem demanded that Lockwood pay for six cartloads of manure worth one dollar apiece. Lockwood refused.

Haslem sued Lockwood in justice of the peace court. He brought claim of trover, a legal action to recover the value of a chattel unlawfully appropriated by another. The justice ruled in Lockwood’s favor.

Haslem appealed to the court of common pleas. Haslem argued that the manure lying in the street was personal property that had been abandoned by its owners. Accordingly, it was available to become the personal property of the first person to take possession of it, which Haslem had done by gathering it into heaps.

Lockwood countered that manure was part of the real estate and that it didn’t become personal property until it was removed from the land. He also argued that even if the manure were personal property, Haslem had abandoned it when his men went home, leaving the piles behind.

The court held that Haslem hadn’t made a sufficient case that he had a right of possession to the manure. It ruled in Lockwood’s favor. Haslem appealed to the supreme court of errors.

Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]

The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]

Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

свернуть