Finding Cases

1
Finding Cases

• Finder v Occupier Whose right is better?

2
Armory v Delamirie 1722

• Chimney Sweeps Boy case
• Plaintiff - Chimney Sweeper boy found ring
• Defendant Goldsmith, kept the diamond
• Held finder obtain legitimate right

3
Bridges v Hawkesworth 1851

• Bank Notes found in public area of a shop
• Gave to shopkeeper (defendant)
• Real owner has never been found
• Defendant refused to return money to plaintiff

Held Finder has the right against the whole
world except the true owner Finders Keepers!
4
Bridges v Hawkesworth 1851

• How about the shopkeepers right?
• the owner did not deposit
• or intentionally hide the money in the shop
• so, money has never been in his possession
• if he obtain some rights,
• when the rights accrued to him?
• did he have duty to take care of the lost money?

5
Hannah v Peel 1945

• Peel bought a house, never moved in
• During WWII, house requisitioned by army
• Hannah soldier stationed in that house
• Window frame, brooch found -gt police -gtowner not
  found -gt Peel -gt sold

• Held followed Chimney boys and Bridges
• Finder got a better right.

6
Hannah v Peel 1945

• How about Peel (the owner of the house)
• He was never in possession of the house
• Not occupier
• He did not know the existence of the brooch
• He was not the owner of the brooch.

7
Elwes v Brigg Gas Co 1886

• Plaintiff Workmen dig a hole in the land
• Defendant Company owned that land
• Pre-historical boat was found

8
Elwes v Brigg Gas Co 1886

• Defendant refused let them take away
• Held landowner owns everything that lay beneath
  surface down to the centre of the Earth.
• If you find something under the land, it belongs
  to the landowner.

9
South Staffordshire Water Co. v Sharman 1896

• D Workmen hired by P to clean out a pool
• The pool and the land were owned by P
• D found two rings in the mud
• D gave the rings to police, cannot find owner
• Police return rings to D
• P sued for the recovery of the rings

10
South Staffordshire Water Co. v Sharman 1896

• Held The occupier has better title than the
  finder of a lost object if
• Occupier show a manifest intention to exercise
  control over the land or house
• It is presumed the lost object is in the
  possession of the occupier.
• Make no different if occupier did not know the
  existence of the lost thing.

11
Hibbert v McKiernan 1948

• Plaintiff Golf Club owning golf course
• Well-built fences to make sure lost ball could be
  found.
• D entered to the course without invitation or
  authorization.
• Found a golden ball lost by P.
• P was charged with theft.
• The Question is from whom P stole the gold ball.

12
Hibbert v McKiernan 1948

• Held
• With well-built fence, D manifested intention to
  control any lost things on his land.
• P trespassed to land. P did NOT find the ball.
• Wrongdoer cannot benefit from wrongdoings

13
City of London Corporation v Appleyard 1963

• Old building to be fixed
• Construction workers cut a hole in the wall
• Found safe built into wall
• A lot of money (notes) in that safe
• Handed over to the police
• Owner not found
• Police asked the court to decide who has title to
  the money.

14
City of London Corporation v Appleyard
Wates Ltd (construction com)
Workers
Hired
Engaged
Yorkwin (leaseholder)
City of London Corp (Landowner)
Leased to
15
City of London Corporation v Appleyard

• Held
• Occupier owns all objects attached to the land or
  under the land.
• Knowledge of existence of that thing is
  irrelevant
• Yorkwin, as leaseholder, own that safe
• But, the lease said City of London Corp. as owner
  of the land owns everything valuable.

16
London Heathrow Airport Lounge
17
Material Facts

• P found gold bracelet on the floor
• in executive lounge of Heathrow airport
• Hand it over to BAB to be claimed by owner
• Left name and address with BAB for return of
  bracelet in case that no one claimed it
• No one claimed it, BAB sold for ?850

18
Material Facts

• P sued for
• return of bracelet or its value damages for
  wrongful interference or
• Damages for conversion and interest.
• wrongful interference (of others property)
  misuse others property in your possession.
• One of the Torts.

19
BAB argued

• The Lounge is open to visitor only at the express
  invitation
• Not to the public
• BAB owned, occupied and controlled it
• The control shows intention to possess or prevent
  others from possessing chattels
• So, Mr. Parker is not finder.
• You cannot find anything in my possession.

20
Parkers Claim is based on

• Mr. Parker Finders Rights
• Based on Protection of Possession
• Rights against the whole world except truth owner
• Chimney Sweep Boy case

21
Public Policy Reasons for finders right

• if not recognized, free-for-all situation
• If no reward
• Just dont pick up or
• Concealed keeper
• obligation to find owner, should be some rights

22
BABs Claim is based upon

• BAB Occupiers Rights
• When Parker found it, bracelet was no longer
  lost ? BAB cannot claim finders right
• BAB must prove before Parker found it, BAB have
  already had some right better than finders
• If occupier exercises control over the land,
  including lost goods, they are in the possession
  of occupier
• So occupier have already had the right over the
  lost one before they were found by finder.

23
Finders Rights

• Finder has a right to keep a lost chattel he
  found against all except
• True owner or
• one who can claim through true owner
• one who had a prior right which was existing
  before finder took it into his control

24
Definition of Finder

• Finder
• Found abandoned or lost chattel
• Takes it into his care and control
• w/o dishonest intent or not trespassing
• If trespassing, limited rights
• Employee / agent find in course of employment,
  not wholly incidental or collateral, employer or
  principal acquires finders rights

25
Finders Obligation

• take reasonable measures to find true owner
• If not (concealed keeper)
• Take reasonable care of it when it is under his
  control
• If not (damaged, lost again destroyed)

26
Occupiers Right

• Occupier has better rights than finder
• Chattels found in or attached to the
  land/building
• If not attached, he has show manifest intention
  to control over the building
• Implied or express
• Control what? Take reasonable measure to ensure
  the lost chattel is to be found (?)
• Occupier of ship, car, caravan or aircraft
  building / land

27
Occupiers Obligation

• Take reasonable measures to
• Ensure lost chattel to be found (if not )
• Find the owner (if not )
• Take reasonable care of the lost chattel in his
  possession (if not)

28
????

• 79?
• ?????????????,?????????????????????,??????????
• ??????????????????,??????,??????????????

29
??? ???????????????????

• 109?????,??????????????????????,????????????(if
  not?)
• 110?????????,??????,?????????????,???????????(wh
  en, where, how?)
• 113??????????????????????,??????(then, what?)

30
??? ???????????????????

• 111??????????????,??????????????????????????????
  ,???????
• 112?????????
• ??????????????????????
• ???????????,??????????
• ?????????,???????????????,?????????????????

31
????????

• 106?????????????????????,???????????????,???????
  ??????????
• ??????????????????
• ????????
• ?????????????????????????,???????????????
• ???????????????????????,????????????????????

32
??????

• 107?????????????
• ??????????????,?????????????????,?????????????????
  ?????????????,
• ????????????????????????????,?????????????????????
  ??
• ??????????????,???????????

33
???04? ?? ?? 7

• ????????,???????????????,????,???????????????,????
  ????????????????????????
• A. ??????,?(??)?????
• B. ??????,???????
• C. ??????????????
• D. ???????????