Haslem v. Lockwood

CASE NAME	THOMAS HASLEM vs. WILLIAM A. LOCKWOOD
CITATION, DATE	37 Conn. 500; 1871 Conn. LEXIS 85, February Term, 1871
COURT	SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF CONNECTICUT, FAIRFIELD COUNTY

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
TRIAL COURT:		APPEAL COURT (for appeal cases only):
PLAINTIFF	Haslem	APPELLANT	Haslem
DEFENDANT	Lockwood	RESPONDENT	Lockwood

DESCRIPTION OF EVENTS
"The plaintiff employed two men to gather ... some manure ... scattered along the side of a public highway." Left in heaps overnight. "The defendant on the next morning, seeing the heaps, endeavored without success to ascertain who had made them.... He thereupon, before noon on that day, removed the heaps."

REMEDY SOUGHT
At trial, plaintiff requested that the manure be declared his personal property. Denied at trial, so plaintiff on appeal moved for a new trial.

ARGUMENT FOR PLAINTIFF
"The plaintiff claimed ... that the manure was personal property which had been abandoned by its owners and became by such abandonment the property of the first person who should take possession of the same, which the plaintiff had done by gathering it into heaps."

ARGUMENT FOR DEFENDANT
"The defendant claimed ... that the manure ... was a part of the real estate, and belonged to the owner of the fee" and "did not change its nature to that of personal estate, unless it was removed.... The defendant further claimed ... the plaintiff, by leaving it from eight o'clock in the evening until noon the next day, [without leaving any notice on or about the property] abandoned all right of possession which he might have had."

COURT OPINION
At trial: "The court ruled adversely to the claims of the plaintiff and held that ... the plaintiff had not made out a sufficient interest in, or right of possession to, the subject matter in dispute...." On appeal: In a divided opinion, a majority of the court ruled that the property was abandoned by the owners of the animals and became the property of the first occupant "who took it." The plaintiff was "entitled to it" since he "added materially to its value by his labor in raking it into heaps." The plaintiff should also have a reasonable amount of time to remove the manure: "Twenty-fours hours, the time allowed by statute for the removal of seaweed gathered into heaps, was not an unreasonable time to be allowed in such a case." "after the plaintiff had changed [the manure's] original condition and greatly enhanced its value by his labor, [the defendant] seized and appropriated to his own use the fruits of the plaintiff's outlay, and now seeks immunity from responsibility on the ground that the plaintiff was a wrong doer as well as himself. The conduct of the defendant is in keeping with his claim, and neither commends itself to the favorable consideration of the court. The plaintiff had the peaceable and quiet possession of the property; and we deem this sufficient until the borough of Stamford shall make complaint."

DISPOSITION OF CASE
"The [trial] court ... rendered judgment for the defendant." The appeal court granted a new trial.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

    Property rights should be allocated to increase social wealth, and the decision in this case promotes productive activity.
    Removal of manure from a highway is a socially beneficial activity: "The highway is not used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of agriculture. The manure is of no benefit whatsoever to it, but on the contrary is a detriment; and in cities and large villages it becomes a nuisance, and is removed by public officers at public expense. The finding in this case is, 'that the removal of the manure and scrapings was calculated to improve the appearance and health of the borough.'"
    "the case finds that the removal of the filth would be an improvement to the borough, and no objection was made by any one to the use that the plaintiff attempted to make of it. Considering the character of such accumulations upon highways in cities and villages, and the light in which they are everywhere regarded in closely settled communities, we cannot believe that the borough in this instance would have had any objection to the act of the plaintiff in removing a nuisance that affected the public health and the appearance of the streets. At all events, we think the facts of the case show a sufficient right in the plaintiff to the immediate possession of the property as against a mere wrong doer."