Intro to Law, suppliment 3-39

Armory v. Delamire
King's Bench, 1 Strange 505 (1722).

Facts: Plaintiff found a jewel and took it to the defendant (a goldsmith) to find out what it was. Defendant took it and offered money in return, but the plaintiff wanted the stone back, which the defendant would not surrender.

Procedure:

Issues: Does the finder have more of a claim to ownership than the goldsmith?

Holding: Yes.

Reasoning: The finder doesn't have absolute ownership, but they have more of a claim than anyone else but the rightful owner.

Bridges v. Hawkesworth
21 L.J. (Q.B.) 75 (1851)

Facts: Plaintiff found a bundle of bank notes on a shop floor and passed them to the defendant for the purpose of returning them to their true owner. After a time the plaintiff returned and demanded the notes, offering to pay for the defendants efforts and also to indemnify the shopkeeper (defendant) against any claim. The defendant said no.

Procedure: Westminster County Court found that the plaintiff handed over not only the responsibility to the true owner to the defendant, but the advantages as well.

Issues: Did the plaintiff have more of a claim to the notes than the defendant?

Holding: Yes

Reasoning: The location of the notes made no difference as to the plaintiff's claim. No circumstances take the case out of the general rule of law, that the finder of a thing has more claim to it than anyone but the rightful owner.

South Staffordshire Water Company v. Sharman
2 Q.B. 44 (1896)

Facts: Plaintiffs employed workmen to clean out a pool on their private land. Defendant, one such workman, found two rings in the bottom of the pool and handed them over to the police. When the police could not find the rightful owners, they returned the rings to the defendant. Plaintiffs claim they have the better right to the rings.

Procedure: County court judge decided for the defendant, stating that the finder had a better claim against all the world but the rightful owner.

Issues: Does an owner of private property have more of a claim to chattel found on his land than the individual who finds it?

Holding: Yes.

Reasoning: "The general principle seems to me to be that where a person has possession of a house or land, with a manifest intention to exercise control over it and the things which may be upon or in it, then, if something is found on that land... the presumption is that the possession of that thing is in the owner of the locus in quo." (This judge treats the location principle as more important than the finder's principle, but it seems like you argue that the person's property is essentially "finding" the item for the owner.)

Hannah v. Peel
King's Bench Division, K.B. (1945)

Facts: Defendant (Major Peel) owned a house that was requisitioned by soldiers during the war. Plaintiff (Corporal Hannah) found a brooch while there in an out of the way place (the defendant never occupied the house). Plaintiff turned it over to the police; after they failed to find the true owner, they turned it over to the defendant, who sold it. Plaintiff (Corporal Hannah) wants the worth of the brooch.

Issue: Does the finder or the property owner have a better claim?

Hold: Plaintiff, the finder, has the better claim.

Reasoning: The defendant never had possession of the property and therefore never had possession of the stuff on it. Thus, the finders keepers except against the true owner comes into play. Also, "It seems to me that a man does not necessarily possess a thing which is lying unattached on the surface of his land even though the thing is not possessed by someone else."

Excerpt from Paul Campos

Notes

Popov v. Hayashi
2002 WL 31833731 (Cal. Superior).

Facts: Popov catches BB homer ball, loses it to a mob, and it is innocently picked up by Hayashi.

Issues: Who has a better claim?

Holding: They have an equal claim, so sell it and split the proceeds.

Reasoning: It was unclear whether Popov would have maintained control if the mob had not occured; in possible future, Hayashi's claim is valid, in another possible future, it isn't. Since there is no way of determining, split the difference.