law suit contested and appealed to the highest court in the State which decided that Post had not got the possession of the fox when Pierson killed it and that he had no property in it as against Pierson until he had reduced it into his own possession. This became the leading case often cited because it established; and I think, for the first time, by the court of last resort in the State, that to give an individual right in wild animals, the claimant must capture them. To the public the decision was worth its cost. To the parties who each expended over a thousand pounds, the fox cost very dear. -James T. Adams, Memorials of Old Bridgehampton 166 (1916, 1962) On the other hand, Bethany R. Berger notes in "It's Not About the Fox: The Untold Story of Pierson v. Post" that the dispute may have really been about use of the land on which the fox was caught, part of the commons in which Pierson's family, like other descendants of the original settlers of Bridgehampton, had special rights. See also Ghen v. Rich Keeble v Hickeringill Ratione soli Roman law Rule of capture Notes References Works cited External links Pierson v. Post (1805) Case Brief for Pierson v. Post at Lawnix.com Pierson v. Post Judgment Roll (Images and transcript) Fox hunting New York Supreme Court cases Personal property law of the United States 1805 in United States case law 1805 in New York (state)