a. Facts-
D owned a house, but did not occupy it. P was a soldier who was quartered in
said house. P found a brooch that was seemingly lost; D was not the true owner
of the brooch. P turned over the brooch to the police. Three years went by and
nobody claimed it, upon which the police handed it over to the D. P sued D for
return or value, and damages, of the brooch.
b. Procedural
History- Judgment in favor of P
c. Issue-
Whether P can bring an action against D, who owns the property on which the
chattel was found but never occupied the property
d. Holding-
Yes, P can bring an action against D, the owner of the property, because D
never had physical possession of the house
e. Rule-
A finder enjoys exclusive property rights, save the true owner, even if the
found chattel was on another’s property, so long as the other is not in
physical possession of said property
f. Rationale-
The Ct said that D was not in physical possession of the house (because he
never lived there), therefore he was not entitled to loose chattels found
on/in/under the house. Further, he had no knowledge of the brooch…P bought it
to his attention, and even gave him a chance to claim it.
g. Notes-
i.
What if Peel DID live in the house???
ii.
Finder vs. owner of locus
iii.
Owner of locus (land) prevails as
against trespassing finder unless trespass is “trivial or merely technical”
iv.
If the finder is a trespasser such
trespasser can have no claim to possession of such property even if it might
otherwise be considered lost
v.
We care about rejoining the true owner
with the item
vi.
Ct finds for Hannah because the brooch
was not found in the soil, and was considered
lost
No comments:
Post a Comment