Finder.cls

HIERARCHY

    Ch          "the Chancery Division of the English High Court"
  = KB          "the King's Bench Division of the English High Court"
  = QB          "the Queen's Bench Division of the English High Court"

AREA            Finder

RESULTS

    Win         "the finder wins"
    Lose        "the finder loses"

ATTRIBUTE       % finder was occupier

    QUESTION    "Was the finder the occupier of the premises where the chattel
                 was found"
    YES         "the finder was the occupier of the premises where the chattel
                 was found"
    NO          "the finder was not the occupier of the premises where the
                 chattel was found"
    UNKNOWN     "it is not known whether the finder was the occupier of the
                 premises where the chattel was found"

ATTRIBUTE       % chattel was attached

    QUESTION    "Was the chattel attached to the land or premises where it was
                 found"
    YES         "the chattel was attached"
    NO          "the chattel was not attached"
    UNKNOWN     "it is not known whether the chattel was attached"

ATTRIBUTE       % non-finder owned premises

    QUESTION    "Was the other claimant (the non-finder) the owner of the
                 premises where the chattel was found"
    YES         "the other claimant was the owner of the premises where the
                 chattel was found"
    NO          "the other claimant was not the owner of the premises where
                 the chattel was found"
    UNKNOWN     "it is not known whether the other claimant was the owner of
                 the premises where the chattel was found"

ATTRIBUTE       % non-finder owned chattel

    QUESTION    "Was the other claimant the true owner of the chattel or
                 did she/he claim through the rights of the true owner"
    YES         "the other claimant was the true owner of the chattel or was
                 claiming through the rights of the true owner"
    NO          "the other claimant was not the true owner of the chattel and
                 was not claiming through the rights of the true owner"
    UNKNOWN     "it is not known whether the other claimant was the true owner
                 of the chattel or was claiming through the rights of the true
                 owner"

ATTRIBUTE       % finder handed over chattel to non-finder

    QUESTION    "Did the finder hand over the chattel to the other claimant
                 after the finding"
    YES         "the finder handed over the chattel to the other claimant
                 after the finding"
    NO          "the finder did not hand over the chattel to the other
                 claimant after the finding"
    UNKNOWN     "it is not known whether the finder handed over the chattel to
                 the other claimant after the finding"

ATTRIBUTE       % agreement between finder and non-finder

    QUESTION    "Did one of the parties rely on the terms of an agreement
                 made with the other which purported to give her/him the right
                 to the chattel"
    YES         "one of the parties relied on the terms of an agreement
                 made with the other which purported to give her/him the right
                 to the chattel"
    NO          "neither party relied on the terms of an agreement regarding
                 the right to the chattel"
    UNKNOWN     "it is not known whether one of the parties relied on the
                 terms of an agreement regarding the right to the chattel"

ATTRIBUTE       % finder was servant of non-finder

    QUESTION    "Was the finder a servant of the other claimant"
    YES         "the finder was a servant of the other claimant"
    NO          "the finder was not a servant of the other claimant"
    UNKNOWN     "it is not known whether the finder was a servant of the other
                 claimant"

ATTRIBUTE       % chattel was hidden

    QUESTION    "Was the chattel hidden or in a position so as to be difficult
                 to find"
    YES         "the chattel was hidden or was in a position so as to be
                 difficult to find"
    NO          "the chattel was not hidden and was not in a position so as to
                 be difficult to find"
    UNKNOWN     "it is not known whether the chattel was hidden or was in a
                 position so as to be difficult to find"

ATTRIBUTE       % attempt to find true owner or chattel clearly abandoned

    QUESTION    "Was an attempt made to find the true owner of the chattel or,
                 alternatively, was the chattel clearly abandoned"
    YES         "an attempt was made to find the true owner of the chattel or,
                 alternatively, the chattel was clearly abandoned"
    NO          "no attempt was made to find the true owner of the chattel and
                 the chattel was not clearly abandoned"
    UNKNOWN     "it is not known whether an attempt was made to find the true
                 owner of the chattel or whether the chattel was clearly
                 abandoned"

ATTRIBUTE       % prior knowledge of chattel

    QUESTION    "Did either of the parties know of the existence of the
                 chattel prior to the finding"
    YES         "one of the parties knew of the existence of the chattel prior
                 to the finding"
    NO          "neither party knew of the existence of the chattel prior to
                 the finding"
    UNKNOWN     "it is not known whether either of the parties knew of the
                 existence of the chattel prior to the finding"

CASE            "Armory v. Delamirie"

    CITATION    "(1722) 1 Str 505; 93 ER 664"
    YEAR        1722
    COURT       KB
    FACTS       (NNNNYNNNNY)
    RESULT      Win

    SUMMARY     "a chimney sweep found a jewel.  Although the report does not
                 expressly say so, most commentators assume that the jewel was
                 found in a chimney in the course of the sweep's occupation.
                 The jewel was handed to a goldsmith for appraisal who, under
                 the pretence of weighing it, extracted the stone from its
                 setting and offered the sweep three halfpence for it.  The
                 sweep refused the offer, but the goldsmith refused to return
                 the stone.  The goldsmith was held liable in trover and
                 ordered to return the stone to the sweep or, failing that, to
                 pay him a sum equivalent to what a stone of that size ``of
                 the finest water'' would be worth."

CASE            "Bridges v. Hawkesworth"

    CITATION    "(1851) 21 LJQB 75"
    YEAR        1851
    COURT       QB
    FACTS       (NNYNYNNNYN)
    RESULT      Win

    SUMMARY     "the plaintiff found a bundle of banknotes on the floor of the
                 public area of a shop.  He handed the notes to the shopkeeper
                 in order that the true owner of the notes might be found.
                 Although the owner was never found, the shopkeeper refused to
                 return the notes to the finder.  The Court found for the
                 finder, holding that there is a ``general right of [a] finder
                 to any article which has been lost as against all the world
                 except the true owner''.\footnote{ibid. at 77 per Patteson J.}
                 It was further noted that the notes had never been in the
                 custody of the shopkeeper nor within the protection of his
                 house as might be the case had they intentionally been
                 deposited there."

CASE            "Elwes v. Brigg Gas Co."
                "Elwes v. Brigg"

    CITATION    "(1886) 33 Ch D 562"
    YEAR        1886
    COURT       Ch
    FACTS       (YYYNNYNYYN)
    RESULT      Lose

    SUMMARY     "a lessee of land found, during the course of some
                 excavations, an ancient boat buried in the soil.  The Court
                 held that the boat belonged to the owner of the land at the
                 time when the lease was granted since: (a) if the boat was
                 regarded as a part of the soil or as a mineral in the
                 soil, it was clearly a part of the land to which the
                 plaintiff was entitled; alternatively, (b) if the boat was
                 considered as a chattel, then the plaintiff was in lawful
                 possession of everything that lay beneath the surface.  Since
                 a trespasser could not have taken possession of the boat, it
                 followed that only the original owner could have a better
                 title, but obviously such rights could no longer be
                 established.\par

                 It followed from the above that the defendant's claim must
                 rest on the terms of the lease.  Although the lease
                 contemplated the excavations which were done, it was silent
                 as to what was to be done with the soil excavated.  It was
                 impossible to imply a term into the contract which would give
                 the defendant lessee the rights to the boat."

CASE            "South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman"
                "South Staffordshire v. Sharman"

    CITATION    "[1896] 2 QB 44"
    YEAR        1896
    COURT       QB
    FACTS       (NYYNNNYYYN)
    RESULT      Lose

    SUMMARY     "the defendant was a workman employed by the plaintiff to
                 clean out a pool located on land owned by the plaintiff.
                 During the operation the defendant found two gold rings
                 embedded in the mud at the bottom of the pool.  Although the
                 plaintiff demanded the rings, the defendant refused to give
                 them up.  He placed them in the hands of police authorities
                 who unsuccessfully endeavoured to find the owners of the
                 rings.  The police returned the rings to the defendant who
                 was then sued in detinue for the recovery of the rings.\par

                 It was proved at the trial that there was no special contract
                 between the parties which called upon the defendant to give
                 up any articles which might be found.\par

                 Although the county court held in favour of the defendant on
                 the basis of {\it Bridges v. Hawkesworth},\footnote{(1851)
                 21 LJQB 75.} the appeal found for the plaintiff on the basis
                 that it had, as owner of the land and pool, the right to
                 exercise control over the same.  {\it Bridges v.
                 Hawkesworth\/} was distinguished on the grounds that the
                 notes in that case were in a public part of the shop and the
                 shopkeeper did not in any sense control them.\par

                 The Court stated a general principle: 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 there is a presumption that things found there
                 are in the possession of the owner."

CASE            "Hannah v. Peel"

    CITATION    "[1945] KB 509"
    YEAR        1945
    COURT       KB
    FACTS       (NNYNNNNYYN)
    RESULT      Win

    SUMMARY     "a brooch was found by the plaintiff who was a lance-corporal
                 stationed in a house owned by the defendant.  The house had
                 been requisitioned by the army during the war and had never
                 been occupied by the defendant.\par

                 The plaintiff was adjusting the black-out curtains when he
                 touched something on the top of the window-frame.  He thought
                 the object to be a piece of dirt or plaster and he dropped it
                 on the outside window ledge.  On the following morning, he
                 saw that it was a brooch and, on the advice of his commanding
                 officer, turned it over to the police for the purpose of
                 finding the owner.  In the following year, the police
                 returned the brooch to the defendant who sold it to a
                 jeweller.  The plaintiff at all times maintained his rights
                 to the brooch against all persons other than the true
                 owner.\par

                 The Court found for the plaintiff on the basis of {\it
                 Bridges v. Hawkesworth\/}\footnote{(1851) 21 LJQB 75.} after
                 a thorough review of the authorities.  The Court further
                 noted that the defendant was never in possession of the
                 premises, that the brooch was never his, and that he had no
                 knowledge of it until it was brought to his notice by the
                 finder."

CASE            "City of London Corporation v. Appleyard (1)"
                "London v. Appleyard (1)"

    CITATION    "[1963] 1 WLR 982"
    YEAR        1963
    COURT       QB
    FACTS       (NYNNNNYYYN)
    RESULT      Lose

    SUMMARY     "workmen employed by Wates Ltd were engaged in cutting a
                 key-way into a cellar wall for the purposes of securing a
                 foundation when they found an old wall-safe built into a
                 recess of the old wall.  Inside was a wooden box which
                 contained a large number of Bank of England notes.  The notes
                 were handed over to the City of London police who sought
                 interpleader proceedings to determine who was entitled to the
                 possession of the notes.\par

                 Wates Ltd was an independent contractor engaged by Yorkwin
                 Investments Ltd for a construction project.  Yorkwin was
                 lessee in possession of the property which was owned in fee
                 simple by the City of London.\par

                 The Court followed the decision in {\it South Staffordshire
                 Water Co. v. Sharman\/}\footnote{[1896] 2 QB 44.} in holding
                 that the occupier is, in the absence of a better title
                 elsewhere, entitled to the possession of objects which are
                 attached to or under the land.  Consequently, since the notes
                 were in a wooden box within a safe built into the wall of the
                 old building, the safe formed part of the demised premises.
                 Yorkwin, being in lawful possession of the premises, was in
                 {\it de facto\/} possession of the safe, even though ignorant
                 of its existence.\par

                 Although Yorkwin was entitled to possession as against the
                 finders, it in turn was displaced by the City of London which
                 relied successfully on a term in the lease which granted it
                 the right to certain objects found on the premises."

CASE            "City of London Corporation v. Appleyard (2)"
                "London v. Appleyard (2)"

    CITATION    "[1963] 1 WLR 982"
    YEAR        1963
    COURT       QB
    FACTS       (YYYNYYNYYN)
    RESULT      Lose

    SUMMARY     "workmen employed by Wates Ltd were engaged in cutting a
                 key-way into a cellar wall for the purposes of securing a
                 foundation when they found an old wall-safe built into a
                 recess of the old wall.  Inside was a wooden box which
                 contained a large number of Bank of England notes.  The notes
                 were handed over to the City of London police who sought
                 interpleader proceedings to determine who was entitled to the
                 possession of the notes.\par

                 Wates Ltd was an independent contractor engaged by Yorkwin
                 Investments Ltd for a construction project.  Yorkwin was
                 lessee in possession of the property which was owned in fee
                 simple by the City of London.  The Court found that the safe
                 formed part of the demised premises and that, consequently,
                 Yorkwin was entitled to the notes as against the workmen.\par

                 The lease contained a clause which purported to grant the
                 rights to ``every relic or article of antiquity rarity or
                 value'' to the City of London.  The sole issue was to
                 determine if the notes fell into that description.  The Court
                 could find no reason for limiting the generality of the words
                 and so found for the City of London."

CASE            "Moffatt v. Kazana"

    CITATION    "[1969] 2 QB 152"
    YEAR        1967
    COURT       QB
    FACTS       (YNNYNNNYYY)
    RESULT      Lose

    SUMMARY     "the occupant of a house found a biscuit tin which contained
                 a large number of banknotes.  The tin was discovered during
                 the course of some work in the kitchen of the house.  To do
                 that work it was necessary to dislodge some bricks from a
                 point at which the main kitchen chimney joined a false flue.
                 The tin fell out when the bricks were dislodged.\par

                 It emerged from the evidence that the defendant occupant had
                 purchased the house from the previous plaintiff owner who had
                 secreted the tin of notes during the time before the current
                 owner had occupied the house.  In selling the bungalow, the
                 seller had wholly forgotten the existence of the tin and the
                 buyer was, of course, unaware of its existence.\par

                 The Court held that the conveyance of the house and land did
                 not suffice to convey the chattels in the house, a
                 consequence of s. 62 of the governing Law of Property Act
                 1965 (UK).  Consequently, the plaintiff remained the true
                 owner of the tin of notes and was entitled to prevail.\par

                 Although the decision depends upon the provisions of a
                 specific statute, it is clear that the true owners of
                 chattels may displace the {\it prima facie\/} title of the
                 owner of the land and the possessory title of any finder."

Other SHYSTER case law specifications: Authorization, Employee and Natural.
Copyright noticeValid HTML 4.0
Home page:  <http://www.popple.net/james/>
E-mail:  <james@popple.net>
Last modified:  30 April 1995