Although law and popular opinion are not always on the closest of terms, there obviously needs to be some general congruence between the two. This is particularly true of the common law, which has developed and taken shape in the community over time. Indeed, its historical origins can be found in its efforts to distill local knowledge and custom into a more integrated body of rules for the whole community. Of course, over time, law and received wisdom tend to reinforce and track each other. The law begins to get into trouble if it strays too far from common wisdom; it can survive and command compliance only if it retains more than a nodding acquaintance with popular values. However, there are important occasions when there is no community consensus or there is a deep-seated disagreement between different groups.

These rather trite observations are especially pertinent in matters of property and ownership. Common understandings – “finders keepers; losers weepers”; “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”; and “a man's home is his castle” – tell us much about both popular opinion and law. There are few more foundational issues for the law to decide than what can be owned, who can own it, how can it be owned, and what it means to own something. As such, the law of property stands at the important juncture where power, commerce, social status, and common morality meet; it can be a conflicted site of community standards and expectations. An old American case about foxhunting that initially seems to have little resonance with the conditions and challenges of contemporary society captures and conveys some of those conflicts.