We have been hired by Mr. Parker to sue British Airways for the value of a
bracelet which Mr. Parker found at London Heathrow Airport (owned at that time
by British Airways), the true owner of which was never found.
Facts: In Nov. 1978, Mr. Parker, the Plaintiff, was waiting as a passenger in the
executive lounge at Heathrow when he found a gold bracelet lying on the floor.
The plaintiff gave the bracelet to an employee of British Airways Board, together
with particulars of his name and address, and asking that in the event of the
bracelet not being claimed by the rightful owner that it be returned to him. The
bracelet is never claimed. Despite the Plaintiff's request for its return, the
defendants, British Airways Board, sells the bracelet and keeps the proceeds. The
plaintiff sues for loss and damage for ₤850 (approx. $1,000). No sign was posted
with respect to the ownership of lost property. British Airways claims in their
defense that the general public does not have access to the lounge, so they have
better claim to the bracelet.
As legal researchers, our task is to present cases that are most similar to our
case, and where the finder is given right to the property found. Below are five
cases already decided. Analyze three of them, alongside the Parker case,
showing:
a) if the case is decided for the finder, the similarities, so that the Parker case
should be decided similarly;
b) if the case is decided otherwise, the differences, so that the Parker case
should be decided differently.
THE RULE OF LAW
The rule of law on personal property and finder's rights stems from a 1722 case
in England. It is one of the first cases that establishes possession as a valuable
property right and as evidence of ownership.
Armory v. Delamirie, King’s Bench, 1 Strange 505 (1722).
Facts: Armory (Plaintiff), a chimney sweep, found a jeweled ring while cleaning a
chimney and took it to Delamirie (Defendant), a jeweler, for appraisal. Delamirie’s
apprentice took the stones from the socket. Delamirie then offered Armory a very
small sum in return. Armory refused and sued for money damages for the value
of the jewels. (It is not made clear in anything I read why the jewel was not
considered the property of the owner of the house whose chimney Armory was
sweeping, so we could conclude that ownership of the chimney was irrelevant, or
the building to which the chimney was attached was abandoned, etc. In any
case, we must assume that the issue of the true owner of the jewel was not
relevant.)
Holding and Rule: A finder of a chattel (a piece of property) does not acquire an
absolute property right, however he does have title superior to everyone except
the rightful owner. The court held that Delamire was liable for the highest
possible value of the stones unless he produced them for the court. Delamire was
also liable for the acts of his apprentice in removing the stones.
Disposition: Judgment for Armory, the plaintiff.
Notes: This case illustrates an application of the prior possessor rule, whereby
the title of the finder is superior to anyone but the true owner.
CASES
1. Bridges v Hawkesworth, (1851) 21 L.J.Q.B. 75, 15 Jur. 1079.
Facts: Bridges found an envelope containing money on the floor of
Hawkesworth’s shop. Bridges left the envelope with Hawkesworth and asked him
to return them to the true owner if possible. Bridges asked for the notes after
they had remained unclaimed for three years and Hawkesworth refused. Bridges
brought suit and appealed the trial court’s judgment for Hawkesworth.
Issue: Who has a superior claim of right to possession of lost property, the finder
or the owner of the premises on which it is found?
Holding and Rule: The finder of a lost article is entitled to it as against all but
the true owner.
The fact that the property was discovered on premises owned by Hawkesworth
does not constitute an exception to the general rule that a finder has the superior
claim of right to possession of lost property.
Bridges has a superior claim to the property. It was held that he was entitled to
do so, the ground of the decision being that the notes, being dropped in the
public part of the shop, were never in the custody of the shopkeeper, or "within
the protection of his house."
Notes: There are some exceptions to the general common law rule favoring the
finder of lost property. For example, the owner of the land on which the property
is found may have superior right to ownership if it was found embedded in the
land.
Decision: In favour of the finder.
2. Hannah v. Peel, King’s Bench, 1945. 1 K.B. 509.
Facts: The defendant’s manor was requisitioned by the military for use in World
War II. A soldier staying there found a brooch (a piece of jewelery). He turned it
in to the police. When the owner could not be found, the brooch was turned over
to the owner of the manor instead of the solider. The manor owner sold it. The
soldier sued the manor owner for the value of the brooch, claiming “finders
keepers”. The manor owner’s defense is that he has superior title to the brooch
because it was found on his property.
Decision: The finder keeps the brooch.
3. In South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman, (1896) some rings were
found embedded in some mud at the bottom of a pool and it was ruled that the
finder was not entitled to them because they were a part of the real estate. The
plaintiffs are the owners of land, wherein there is a (swimming?) pool. The
plaintiffs employed the defendant, among others, to clean out that pool. In the
course of that operation two gold rings were found by the defendant in the mud
at the bottom of the pool.
The plaintiffs are the landowners, and as such they have the right to forbid
anybody coming on their land or in any way interfering with it. They had the right
to say that their pool should be cleaned out in any way that they thought fit, and
to direct what should be done with anything found in the pool in the course of
such cleaning out. The case is like others where an article is found on private
property, although the owners of that property are ignorant that it is there. The
ruling: "The possession of land carries with it in general, by our law, possession
of everything which is attached to or under that land, and, in the absence of a
better title elsewhere, the right to possess it also. And it makes no difference that
the possessor is not aware of the thing's existence. ... But it seems preferable to
say that the legal possession rests on a real possession constituted by the
occupier's general power and intent to exclude unauthorized interference."
Decision: In favour of the landowner, the
plaintiff and against the finder of the rings.
4. In Corporation of London v. Appleyard [1963] 1 WLR 982 a workman
(Appleyard) employed by Wates Ltd was hired to cut a channel into a cellar wall
for the purposes of securing a foundation when he 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 currency notes. The notes were handed over to the
City of London police who sought proceedings to determine who was entitled to
the possession of the notes.
Wates Ltd is an independent contractor hired by Yorkwin Ltd for the construction
project. Yorkwin leased the property from the owner, the Corporation of London.
The Court followed the decision in South Staffordshire Water Co v. Sharman
[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, were in possession of the
safe, even though ignorant of its existence.
Although Yorkwin was entitled to possession as against the finders, they in turn
were displaced by the Corporation of London which relied successfully on a term
in the lease which granted them the right to certain objects found on the
premises.
Decision: In favour of the City of London, owners of the
property, against the finders.
5. Corliss v. Wenner, 2001 WL 1007928 (Ct. App. Idaho, 2001)
Facts:
Wenner hired Anderson to build a driveway on his ranch near Sun Valley, Idaho.
Anderson and his employee, Corliss, were excavating soil when they uncovered a
jar containing 96 gold pieces dating 1857 to 1914. Anderson and Corliss first
agreed to split the coins but then argued, so Anderson fired Corliss and turned
the coins over to Wenner. Corliss sued, contending the coins belonged to him and
Anderson as finders. The coins, having been concealed, were mislaid property. As
such, the right of possession goes to the land owner.
The finder of lost property or treasure, which includes gold coins so long
concealed that the owner is dead or unknown, has "a right to possess the
property against the entire world but the rightful owner regardless of the place of
finding." However, the notion that a trespassing treasure hunter, or a hired
handyman or employee, could or might have greater possessory rights than a
landowner in objects uncovered on his or her property runs counter to the
reasonable expectations of present-day land ownership. This is mislaid property
that belongs to the landowner unless the true owner is identified.
Decision: Decision against the finder
was upheld on appeal.