Jus tertii

Last updated

Jus tertii (English: rights of a third party/ stranger) is a term for the legal argument by which a person can defend a claim made against them by invoking the rights of a stranger to the dispute. The defence asserts that the rights of the stranger are superior to those of the claimant; in other words the defence is that the claimant has insufficient right to make the claim he does, and that the stranger is the one to whom the defendant is really answerable.

Contents

Generally the argument is an attempt by the defendant to justify their own entitlement to possession by showing that legal title belongs to a person other than the person with actual possession. By showing legitimate title belongs to a third party (tertius), jus tertii arguments imply that the present possessor’s interest is illegitimate or that the present possessor is a thief.

In English law the argument is also sometimes used to defend against a claim by a person with possession of a thing, on the grounds that the claimant is not the true owner. (See the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 s 8(1).). This is unusual, and in most cases the defence of jus tertii is considered ineffective: a claimant with possession is, as regards a wrongdoer, entitled to the full rights of an owner; and this is so even if, as regards the stranger, his title is less than that (The Winkfield [1902] P 42).

Under United States law, jus tertii arguments are generally insufficient to support actions for replevin because they fail to show that possession is more legitimate in the third party than in the present possessor. [1] However, a bailee or other legal agent of the owner may successfully assert the argument.

The principle is sometimes used to allow one person to enforce or test the constitutional rights of another, which usually can't be done due to lack of standing. This is only possible for fundamental rights, where there is a close connection between the person whose rights are violated and the person wishing to enforce them, and the constitutional right being enforced is a fundamental right. See, e.g., Singleton v. Wulff. [2]

Hypothetical example

Art brings an action for replevin against Burt, seeking to recover a bicycle. In support for the action, Art presents evidence that Cathy is in fact the true owner of the bicycle in question, not Burt. A US court would reject Art’s jus tertii argument for replevin because he has failed to show that he has a more legitimate interest in the bike than Burt.

Case law example

In Gissel v. State, [1] Gissel unlawfully harvested wild rice growing on land jointly owned by the state of Idaho and the National Forest Service. An Idaho Court convicted Gissel of trespass, and Idaho officials seized and sold the rice at auction. Because Idaho had only one half interest in the land, Gissel challenged the state’s authority to seize, sell, and keep the profits from all of the rice. The Idaho Supreme Court held that Gissel was entitled to half of the profits because Idaho did not effectively make the jus tertii argument on behalf of the federal government, “the Gissels, though trespassers and without legal title, which title rests with the Forest Service, still by mere possession have greater rights superior to that of the state.”

The jus tertii principle also extends to criminal law. For example, in Anic, Stylianou & Suleyman v R, [3] three men were charged with larceny (among other things) after breaking into a house to steal drugs. The men argued that they should not be charged with stealing something which is unlawfully possessed. The court rejected this argument on the basis that larceny has always been an offence against possession. The common law has never recognised an absolute right of ownership. The owner is merely the person who has the best right to possession. Therefore, a person can be guilty of larceny by stealing from someone who had stolen the thing from someone else. The right to possess drugs is limited by statute but the occupant of the house had a better right to possession than the defendants.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theft</span> Nonconsensual taking of someones property

Theft is the act of taking another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. The word theft is also used as a synonym or informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as larceny, robbery, embezzlement, extortion, blackmail, or receiving stolen property. In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny, while in others, theft is defined more narrowly. A person who engages in theft is known as a thief.

Larceny is a crime involving the unlawful taking or theft of the personal property of another person or business. It was an offence under the common law of England and became an offence in jurisdictions which incorporated the common law of England into their own law, where in many cases it remains in force.

Trespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels, and trespass to land.

Adverse possession in common law, and the related civil law concept of usucaption, are legal mechanisms under which a person who does not have legal title to a piece of property, usually real property, may acquire legal ownership based on continuous possession or occupation without the permission (licence) of its legal owner.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theft Act 1968</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Theft Act 1968 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It creates a number of offences against property in England and Wales.

Replevin or claim and delivery is a legal remedy which enables a person to recover personal property taken wrongfully or unlawfully, and to obtain compensation for resulting losses.

In tort law, detinue is an action to recover for the wrongful taking of personal property. It is initiated by an individual who claims to have a greater right to their immediate possession than the current possessor. For an action in detinue to succeed, a claimant must first prove that he had better right to possession of the chattel than the defendant, and second, that the defendant refused to return the chattel once demanded by the claimant.

In the United States, the exclusionary rule is a legal rule, based on constitutional law, that prevents evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights from being used in a court of law. This may be considered an example of a prophylactic rule formulated by the judiciary in order to protect a constitutional right. The exclusionary rule may also, in some circumstances at least, be considered to follow directly from the constitutional language, such as the Fifth Amendment's command that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" and that no person "shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

In rem jurisdiction is the power a court may exercise over property or a "status" against a person over whom the court does not have in personam jurisdiction. Jurisdiction in rem assumes the property or status is the primary object of the action, rather than personal liabilities not necessarily associated with the property.

A legal remedy, also referred to as judicial relief or a judicial remedy, is the means with which a court of law, usually in the exercise of civil law jurisdiction, enforces a right, imposes a penalty, or makes another court order to impose its will in order to compensate for the harm of a wrongful act inflicted upon an individual.

Trover is a form of lawsuit in common law jurisdictions for recovery of damages for wrongful taking of personal property. Trover belongs to a series of remedies for such wrongful taking, its distinctive feature being recovery only for the value of whatever was taken, not for the recovery of the property itself.

Third party standing is a term of the law of civil procedure that describes when one party may file a lawsuit or assert a defense in which the rights of third parties are asserted. In the United States, this is generally prohibited, as a party can only assert his or her own rights and cannot raise the claims of right of a third party who is not before the court. However, there are several exceptions to this doctrine.

A maritime lien, in English and US law and elsewhere, is a specific aspect of admiralty law concerning a claim against a ship for services rendered to it or injury caused by it.

<i>Ius</i> Rights to citizenship virtue in ancient Rome

Ius or Jus in ancient Rome was a right to which a citizen (civis) was entitled by virtue of his citizenship (civitas). The iura were specified by laws, so ius sometimes meant law. As one went to the law courts to sue for one's rights, ius also meant justice and the place where justice was sought.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and introduction to tort law in common law jurisdictions:

Canonical institution is a technical term of the canon law of the Catholic Church, meaning in practice an institution having full recognition and status within the Catholic Church.

Conversion is an intentional tort consisting of "taking with the intent of exercising over the chattel an ownership inconsistent with the real owner's right of possession". In England and Wales, it is a tort of strict liability. Its equivalents in criminal law include larceny or theft and criminal conversion. In those jurisdictions that recognise it, criminal conversion is a lesser crime than theft/larceny.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Proprietary estoppel</span>

Proprietary estoppel is a legal claim, especially connected to English land law, which may arise in relation to rights to use the property of the owner, and may even be effective in connection with disputed transfers of ownership. Proprietary estoppel transfers rights if

Trespass in English law is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to goods, and trespass to land.

Commonwealth v. Tluchak, 166 Pa. Super. 16, 70 A.2d 657 (1950). Judge Reno wrote the opinion of the Court. This in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the United States case involves defendants convicted of larceny.

References

  1. 1 2 Gissel v. State, 727 P.2d 1153 (Idaho 1986)
  2. ↑ Singleton v. Wulff Et Al., 96 S. Ct. 2868, 428 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1976)
  3. ↑ Anic, Stylianou and Suleyman v R [1993] SASC 4159 , (1993) 61 SASR 223, Supreme Court (SA,Australia).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.