Decisions on how possession and title arise: the fox hunted in Pierson v Post, the chimney sweep's jewel in Armory v Delamirie and the Australian recognition of native title in Mabo. A case belongs here when its cited article describes it as a decision on possession, finding or original title. It excludes cases on regulation of land use and on estates. The three decisions come from three jurisdictions and one idea, that possession and first occupation can be the root of ownership.
All Possession and Title Cases
Filter Results3 entries
Sources
Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (Wikipedia)
Wikimedia FoundationHas Member: Mabo v Queensland (No 2), Introduction, sentence 1Quote, Has Member: Mabo v Queensland (No 2), Introduction, sentence 1
Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (commonly known as the Mabo case or simply Mabo; MAH-bo) is a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia that recognised the existence of Native Title in Australia.
Pierson v Post (Wikipedia)
Wikipedia contributorsHas Member: Pierson v Post, Introduction, sentence 3Quote, Has Member: Pierson v Post, Introduction, sentence 3
It was a case where the labor theory of property and the first possession theory of property clashed.
Armory v Delamirie (Wikipedia)
Has Member: Armory v Delamirie, Introduction, sentence 2Quote, Has Member: Armory v Delamirie, Introduction, sentence 2
It is one of the first cases that established possession as a valuable property right and as evidence of ownership.
Reader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.