Kee v. Gratz 13 16, 1922, 61
Decision Date | 13 November 1922 |
Docket Number | No. 61,61 |
Citation | 260 U.S. 127,67 L.Ed. 167,43 S.Ct. 16 |
Parties | McKEE et al. v. GRATZ. Argued Oct. 13-16, 1922 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Lon O. Hocker, Frank H. Sullivan, and George F. Haid, all of St. Louis, Mo., for petitioners.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 128-131 intentionally omitted] Mr. S. Mayner Wallace, of St. Louis, Mo., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 131-134 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit brought by the respondent, who is also a cross petitioner, to recover the value of mussel shells removed from the lands of the respondent's assignor and manufactured by the petitioners into buttons. It was brought in a Court of the State of Missouri, but was removed to the District Court of the United States. There were two counts; one simply for the conversion of the shells and a second alleging that the shells were part of the realty and that the plaintiff was entitled to treble damages under R. S. Mo. 1909, § 5448 (R. S. Mo. 1919, § 4242). At the trial the District Court directed a verdict for the defendants and the judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Gratz v. McKee, 258 Fed. 335, 169 C. C. A. 351. The main question was disposed of on the ground that by the Statutes of Missouri, R. S. 1909, §§ 6508, 6551, the title to the mussels was in the State. As to the second count it was held that the mussels were not part of the realty. Later, a rehearing was granted, and while the Court adhered to its former opinion on the second count, it rightly, as we think, held that the statutes declaring the title to game and fish to be in the State spoke only in aid of the State's power of regulation and left the plaintiff's interest what it was before. See Missouri v. Holland, 252 U. S. 416, 434, 40 Sup. Ct. 382, 64 L. Ed. 641, 11 A. L. R. 984. It assumed that the defendants were trespassers and sent the case back for a new trial on that footing, the damages to be confined to the value of the shells at the date of conversion and not to include that subsequently added by manufacturing them into buttons. Gratz v. McKee (C. C. A.) 270 Fed. 713.
The mussels were taken alive from the bottom of what seems to have been at times a flowing stream, at times a succession of pools, were boiled on the banks and the shells subsequently removed. As to the plaintiff's title, it is not necessary to say that the mussels were part of the realty within the meaning of the Missouri Statutes or in such sense as to make the plaintiff an absolute owner. It is enough that there is a plain distinction between such creatures and game birds or freely moving fish, that may shift to another jurisdiction without regard to the will of land owner or State. Such birds and fishes are not even in the possession of man. 252 U. S. 434, 40 Sup. Ct. 382, 64 L. Ed. 641, 11 A. L. R. 984; 2 Kent, Comm. 349; Young v. Hichens, 6 Q. B. 606. On the other hand it seems not unreasonable to say that mussels having a practically fixed habitat and little ability to move are as truly in the possession of the owner of the land in which they are sunk as would be a prehistoric boat discovered under ground or unknown property at the bottom of a canal. Elwes v. Brigg Gas Co., 33 Ch. D. 562; Reg. v. Rowe, Bell, C. C. 93; Barker v. Bates, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 255, 23 Am. Dec. 678. This is even more obvious as to the shells, when left piled upon the bank, as they were, to await transportation. Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Lewis, 162 U. S. 366, 378, 382, 16 Sup. Ct. 831, 40 L. Ed. 1002. Possession is enough to warrant recovery of substantial damages for conversion by a trespasser. We say nothing about the character of the stream as to navigability. The jury at least might find that there was nothing in that to prevent the application of what we have said. We are slow to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
French v. Merrill
...that a license to enter another's property may be implied "from the habits of the country." Id. (quoting McKee v. Gratz, 260 U.S. 127, 136, 43 S.Ct. 16, 67 L.Ed. 167 (1922) ). Indeed, "the knocker on the front door is treated as an invitation or license to attempt an entry, justifying ingre......
-
Elder v. Delcour
...has the exclusive right to fish therein, appellant cites Gratz v. McKee, 8 Cir., 270 F. 713, 721, 23 A.L.R. 1393, affirmed 260 U.S. 127, 136, 43 S.Ct. 16, 67 L.Ed. 167. That case is not controlling here. The Supreme Court in that case, 260 U.S. 127, 135, 43 S.Ct. 16, 17, said: 'It is enough......
-
United States v. Felter
...the state as a sovereign and under its police powers." Gratz v. M'Kee, 270 F. 713, 718 (C.C.A. 8th Cir. 1920), affirmed 260 U.S. 127, 43 S.Ct. 16, 67 L.Ed. 167 (1922); accord, State ex rel. State Game Comm'n v. Red River Valley Co., 51 N.M. 207, 182 P.2d 421 (1945); 36A C.J.S. Fish § 4 (196......
-
Florida v. Jardines
...of the country," notwithstanding the "strict rule of the English common law as to entry upon a close." McKee v. Gratz, 260 U.S. 127, 136, 43 S.Ct. 16, 67 L.Ed. 167 (1922) (Holmes, J.). We have accordingly recognized that "the knocker on the front door is treated as an invitation or license ......
-
CRIMINAL TRESPASS AND COMPUTER CRIME.
...(301.) Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 8 (2013) ("A license may be implied from the habits of the country." (quoting McKee v. Gratz, 260 U.S. 127, 136 (302.) State v. Merhege, 394 P.3d 955, 957, 959 (N.M. 2017). (303.) People v. James, 902 N.Y.S.2d 293, 298 (Crim. Ct. 2010) (summarizing le......
-
The Fourth Amendment and General Law.
...Compelled Remedies, 107 YALE L.J. 77, 122-24 (1997). (187.) 569 U.S. 1 (2013). (188.) Id. at 6. (189.) Id. at 8 (quoting McKee v. Gratz, 260 U.S. 127,136 (190.) Id. (191.) Id. at 9. (192.) Id. (193.) Baude & Stern, supra note 5, at 1835. (194.) See Bellia & Clark, supra note 16, at ......
-
When Can the Police Lie? The Limits of Law Enforcement Officers' Use of Deception in Obtaining Consent to Search a Home.
...gazing into home). (48.) See Jardines, 569 U.S. at 7 (expressing need to determine presence or absence of license). (49.) McKee v. Gratz, 260 U.S. 127, 136 (50.) See Jardines, 569 U.S. at 8 (analogizing to Girl Scouts and trick-or-treaters). (51.) See Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 9-10 (......
-
The pioneer spirit and the public trust: the American rule of capture and state ownership of wildlife.
...colonial landowners "who had not post notices of their opposition welcomed wanderers to hunt on their wild lands"). (105) McKee v. Gratz, 260 U.S. 127, 136 (106) Lund, Early American Wildlife Law, supra note 77, at 714. (107) See generally H.W. BRANDS, THE AGE OF GOLD: THE CALIFORNIA GOLD R......