Armory v. Delamirie (1722) (chimney sweep)

a.       Facts- P, a chimney sweeping boy, finds a jewel during work. P brings the jewel to a goldsmith, D, who assesses it. D’s apprentice takes the stones out of the jewel. D offers P 3 pence for the jewel, upon which P declines and asks for return of the jewel. Upon return, P realizes the stones are missing. P sues D for trover

b.      Procedural History- Action of trover brought by P against D. Judgment for P

c.       Issue- Whether a finder of an item has ownership rights such to bring trover against another

d.      Holding- Yes, a finder of an item can bring trover against another

e.       Rule- The finder can enjoy ownership rights against everyone ---except for the true owner. The finder enjoys ownership rights short of absolute ownership

                                                              i.      DEEPER RULE: ---except the true owner and subsequent finders

f.       Rationale-

g.      Notes:

                                                              i.      F1 finds a watch, and then loses it. F2 then finds it. Can F1 sue F2 for the watch? YES, F1 has retained all rights against everyone except for the true owner

                                                            ii.      If someone takes your stuff, you do not have to show that you are the true owner. If you are in possession of the item, you can be assumed to be the owner

                                                          iii.      Possession doesn’t mean that you are the “true owner”, you may be a renter, borrower, etc…but you still have better rights than anyone else, save the “true owner”

                                                          iv.      It is better to over-compensate the P rather than under-compensate.

1.      By imposing the highest amount for the value of the jewel, it is encouraging the jeweler to return the jewel

                                                            v.      If the true owner comes into the scene, does he have action against the chimney-sweep?

1.      Yes, the sweep had rights over everyone except the true owner

2.      Yes, the sweep might be liable for tort of conversion

3.      Unjust enrichment---the sweep has enriched his life at the true owner’s expense

                                                          vi.      Can true owner bring action against jeweler?

1.      Yes, true owner can bring action against the jeweler. This is fair. The jeweler would not be screwed because he could go after the chimney sweep

a.       We can either screw the true owner, who has done nothing wrong. Or we can screw the jeweler, who has done wrong. The question is: Who is it “more fair” to screw?

                                                        vii.      What if the sweep found it on the dining table instead of the chimney?

1.      The jewel is stolen. However, we don’t care that it was stolen. The jeweler could have taken the jewel from a “thief” or a “finder”, doesn’t matter

a.       POLICY: This is because the burden would be on the sweep to prove that he “found” it or “owned” it