
Chapter 5: Finding
This generally addresses how society deals with distributing property rights when a person acquires possession of an item through
finding.

Goddard v. Winchell
o
Doctrine of Accretion v. Avulsion
 Accretion: Erosion that happens slowly over time; gradually
 Boundaries of land will change in the accretion process and land will be properly lost and gained by
accretion.
 Avulsion: one sudden event of erosion, such as a flood: this event will not leave the owner devoid of his land even
though a river may run through it now where it didn’t

Eads v. Brazelton
o ABANDONED PROPERTY – Property that is separated from its owner by circumstance or will, and that property is
intentionally left behind by the owner with no intention of recovering it
o Can be implied with actions that particularly make no attempt to recover and particularly disregard the property, a long
period of time with complete inaction can signify abandonment… also throwing in a dumpster can signify abandonment
o The case involved the DISTINCTION between simply marking off an area over a shipwreck for later recovery, and actually
effectuating guard over the area by parking the ship over the sight and having means to begin operations of recovery.
(Marking area off was not enough to claim you had any Possession of the abandoned property.
o RULE – occupation or POSSESSION of property, lost, abandoned, or W/O owner must involve an actual taking of he
property with the intent to reduce it to possession

Armory v. Delamirie
o LOST PROPERTY – That which the owner has involuntarily parted with through neglect, carelessness or inadvertence
o FINDER – one who acquires possession of property that has been mislaid, lost, or abandoned
o TROVER = Action for damages associated with compensation for wrongful taking of one’s property
o RULE – The general right of the finder to any article which has been lost is paramount against all in the world except
the true owner.
o The case involved finding of a ring, upon taking it to a jeweler for appraisal the jeweler removed the stone and returned the
ring. Court held that the damages would equal the value of the most expensive stone that could fit in the setting.

Bridges v. Hawkesworth
o A package of bills was found on the floor of a store, finder left at store for return to rightful owner after 3 years and no
claim he claimed rights to the notes.
The nature in which the package was found lying and the shopkeeper’s lack of knowledge of the package lead the court to
see this as lost property up for possession by the finder. They noted that the property did not likely end up on the floor by
purpose, but more likely by accident.
o Rule of Armory case upheld – the finder of a lost article is entitled to it against all parties, except the rightful owner

South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman
o The landowner exercised control over their land when they hired the workers to do as they instructed. They had workers
empty a pond, and when the workers emptied it they found 2 gold rings. Finder claimed possession and property owners
said differently. Court found the legal possession rests on a real de facto possession constituted by the occupier’s general
power and intent to exclude unauthorized use.
o RULE – When a person has possession of land, with manifest intent to exercise control over it and the things which may
be upon or in it, then if something is found upon or in the land, the possession and right to that thing is that of the
owner of the site where that thing was found.

Hannah v. Peel
o Finder of a broach on property where the owner was not actively exercising control over the property. The property was
being used by the Army and a soldier found a brooch. Upon proper notification and passage of time the brooch was given
to the owner of the property not the finder – finder got it back through action in court because it was not in the land or
attached to it and the owner was not exercising control over the land at the time of the finding.
o RULE – a man does posses everything that is attached to or under his land, but he does NOT necessarily possess
something that is lying unattached on the surface of the land, when it is clearly a lost item. In this case the finder of the
item has all claim to it except against the rightful owner of the object.

McAvoy v. Medina
o MISLAID PROPERTY – Property which the owner intentionally places where he can again resort to it, and then forgets
to pick it up
o To place a pocket book on a table and forget it there is not to lose it, as in the definition of lost property:
o
RULE - Finder acquires no rights to mislaid property, the shopkeeper has possessory interest in the mislaid property,
acting as a bailee, has these rights against all but the true owner.

Schley v. Couch
o TREASURE TROVE – money or coin, gold, silver, plate, or bullion found hidden under or in the earth, or other private
places, the owner thereof being unknown
o RULE – Property found embedded in the soil under circumstances repelling the idea that it has been lost is considered
mislaid property. (VERY few jurisdictions consider the treasure trove as a valid doctrine)

RIGHTS OF FINDER –
o
Lost Property – right to possess against all others except the true owner
o
Mislaid Property – None – unless the finder is the keeper of the place property was mislaid… When they are that
keeper –

they hold possession against all but the true owner and are acting as bailee in this time subject to returning
property upon demand of the true owner
o
Abandoned Property – Right to possession and True Title
CHAPTER 6: BAILMENTS





A bailment is created when the owner of a thing allows another to lawfully possess it (chattel) for a time.
o Owner = BAILOR
o Holder = BAILEE
ELEMENTS: Voluntary Relinquishment (acting by one’s free will to give up item)
DELIVERY: (actual physical possession of item must be delivered)
ACCEPTANCE: (bailee must assume custody and control)
Allen v. Hyatt Regency
o Parking garage incident where it was decided that there was a bailment because the security interest that the person had in
parking their car in a lot that had security guards created a situation where a person leaves their car with the expectation of
picking it up undamaged.
o A bailment relationship makes the bailee responsible for the thing delivered to be returned to the bailor undamaged
o An involuntary bailee (comes by the item by accident) does not have a duty to care for the thing; however if the bailee
exercises any dominion or control over the thing bailed, then he takes on the same duties as a voluntary bailee
 The parking garage situation creates a bailment in the car but not the contents of the car generally
CHAPTER 7: UNAUTHORIZED POSSESSION (INCLUDING ADVERSE POSSESSION)

Anderson v. Gouldberg
o RULE: the person who acquires possession, even wrongfully, has a right to retain the property from a stranger to the
property

Russell v. Hill
o RULE: Where no one has right to property b/c there is a true owner, the possessor wins against all but the true owner
b/c he has possession.
o The court here held that trespasser A who cut down trees could not recover from trespasser B who then took those same
trees and sold them – Manifeslty noted that this case involved a certainty of who the true owner was, and it would not be
allowable to have A recover from B when the true owner could then also recover from A.
 THIS rule is not widely held


ACQUISITIONS OF LIMITATION TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESION
Chapin v. Freeland AND Marengo Cave Co. v Ross
o
ELEMENTS for Prima Facie Case: Adverse Possession
 a) actual;
 b) visible;
 c) open/notorious;
 d) exclusive;
 e) under claim of ownership, and;
 f) hostile to the owner, and the world, and; g) continuous for the full period prescribed by statute.


O’Keefe v. Snyder
o Rule: To establish adverse possession to chattels, the rule of law has been that the possession must be hostile, actual,
visible, exclusive, and continuous. Open and visible in this context will now be upon the discovery of the missing chattel:
 (1) did the owner use due diligence to recover the chattel at the time of the alleged dispossession/theft?
 (2) whether at the time of the alleged dispossession/theft there was an effective method to put others on notice?
 (3) whether registering the chattel or reporting the chattel with an authoritative institution would put prospective
buyers on notice of the possibility that they could be purchasing in stolen goods?

Howard v. Kunto
o P sought to sell half of his waterfront land to another party, and so had a survey performed to determine the exact lay of his
property. When the survey was performed, however, it was found that the previous surveys, which were used for
determining the deeds that were recorded for each plot in the neighborhood, were in error by 50ft. Thus, each lot that was
occupied actually belonged in deed to the person's next-door neighbor. D occupied a house on property that was described
in the deed acquired by P, who sued for recovery of the land described by the deed. D contended that a long string of
previous occupiers of the house adverse to P constituted a new title in D. P argued that D could not tack his adverse
possession time onto that of his predecessors because it was only a summer house, and therefore not "continuously"
occupied, and that the chain of possessors was not in "privity" because the deed was to the wrong tract of land.
1, the court reasoned that the rule of continuity was not one requiring absolute mathematical continuity, but rather if the
land is occupied during the period of the year when it is capable of use, that is sufficient.
2, the requirement of "privity" is intended to keep chains of unrelated squatters from voiding the title of the original
owner, and clearly those are not the facts in this case. Each possessor was a bona fide purchaser from the previous one.
Furthermore, where a person claims more than his deed describes, the question of privity is not defeated, so it should be the
same for where the deed describes an adjacent parcel of land.
3. The privity requirement can be fulfilled by a relation between disseisors of grantee/grantor, ancestor/heir, or
devisee/devisor. Possession need not be directly by the disseisin, but may be by someone authorized by him.
4. A possessor can claim title to a land which he occupied for the statutory period under the mistaken belief that it was his
own, even though he may not have muniment of title.
5. Most statutes have disability clauses that extend the period required for adverse possession if the owner is a child, insane,
incompetent, etc. However, there can be no tacking of disabilities, the statute runs with any change in ownership.
6. There has been opinion recently that the disability clauses should be removed because they prevent some cases from
being settled in a reasonable time when there is clearly no opposition from the disabled land owner. The theory is that the
disabled persons relatives/friends will look out for him, and the occasional loss will be offset be the increased security
against latent claims by disabled persons suddenly being brought forward.
o
Rule: To establish privity in adverse possession cases, it must be established that the adverse possessor's predecessors
had intended to always convey title to the adversely possessed land. Such privity in contract may be used in the tacking
process to prove adverse possession.
A purchaser may tack the adverse use of its predecessor in interest to that of his own where the land was intended to be
included in the deed between them, but was mistakenly omitted from the description.

Adverse Possession of Personal Property
o Traditional Approach
 One whose possession of chattels is actual, adverse, hostile, exclusive, open and notorious, and continuous for
the appropriate amount of time under the statute of limitations time obtains title to it.
 This approach has been criticized because someone who uses chattels in the manner in which they were meant
to be used, might not allow for notice to ever be given to the real owner, simply because of the nature of the use.
o Discovery Approach
 This approach allows for the statute of limitations to begin running when the true owner knows of the
possession, and some states have picked up on this approach, especially in the cases where the chattel has
artistic, historic or other special importance.
o Demand and Refusal Approach
 This approach allows even more room for the plaintiff than both other approaches and states that the statute
does not begin to run until the true owner demands return of the chattels and is refused.

Accession
o The basic rule of accession applies when a person uses labor or material to improve a chattel owned by another, in order
to decide who receives title to the resulting product
o Addition of Labor Only
 If materials belonging to another person are used to create a fundamentally different article, then the laborer is
entitles to title, and the true owner of the property is entitled to damages in the amount of a fair market value of
the original property.
 Addition of Labor and Materials
 If someone takes their own materials and adds them to that of another person by means of their own labor, they
now own the improved chattels, in return for giving the original owner a fair market price for the original
chattels.