a. Facts-
P went into D’s shop and found a wallet on a table. P notified D of the find. P told D to give it to the true
owner, if said true owner should claim it. True owner did not claim it, upon
which P demanded the money from D. D did not submit said money. P sued D for
the sum of found money.
b. Procedural
History- Ct ruled that P could not bring action against D. P alleged exceptions
c. Issue-
Whether P can bring action against D for chattel that was not considered to be
lost, but mislaid
i.
Was the wallet in question “lost”?
d. Holding-
No, P cannot bring action against D for chattel that was not considered to be
lost, but misplaced
e. Rule-
Chattels which are “misplaced” must be construed as such, and not as “lost”.
Therefore, rules of “lost” chattel are not applicable to “misplaced” chattel
f. Rationale-
The wallet was found upon a table, presuming that the true owner placed the
wallet there intending to pick it up again. By failing to pick it up later,
true owner has not lost the wallet, but misplaced it
g. Notes-
i.
Intention of the true owner comes into
play
ii.
Chattel must be “lost” in order to be
“found”
iii.
If item is mislaid, owner of property
which it is found has the duty to deliver to employer or to “take reasonable
care for the safe keeping of chattel until the delivery to true owner”
iv.
If item is mislaid, rights go to owner
of locus in quo
v.
Mislaid:
1. Awareness
that item is in specific place, AND
2. Intention
of taking back
vi.
POLICY: It’s not strictly about the true
owner coming back to claim it…but about “when something is mislaid by the
customer, it is the duty of the shopkeeper to hold the item until the customer
comes back for it”…which gives the shopkeeper the possessory interest
vii.
If we leave “mislaid” items w/ the owner
of locus, the true owner can come back to claim…because people who “mislay”
things have some idea where they parted w/ their item
viii.
The problem is that it doesn’t give good
incentive for the finder to hand over the “lost” item
No comments:
Post a Comment