Finders of Property
A. When someone finds property, it depends upon how the property is classified as to who gets ownership.
4 Classifications:
1. Lost Property–Owner unintentionally and involuntarily parted with the property and does not know where it is. The Finder gets possession against all except the true owner. See Hannah v. Peel. A third party who tries to take it because they know it was found is not entitled to possession. See chimney sweep example.
2. Mislaid Property–Owner voluntarily puts property in a certain place but overlooked or forgot where they put it. The owner of the property on or in which the property is found gets possession.
3. Abandoned Property–Owner no longer wants it and relinquished their possession. Finder gets possession against all.
4. Treasure Trove–Coins or currency of antiquity that has been hidden (usually buried) for such a long period of time, the owner is probably dead or undiscoverable. Finder gets possession against all but true owner.
B. The whole point in finders law is to enable the original owner to be able to discover what they lost. For this reason, the first finder of lost property is always able to retain possession over subsequent finders. See lost watch example. X found a watch, then lost it. Z found the watch. X may retain possession of the watch from Z. Same if Z stole it from X. Same if X had stolen the watch from true owner.
C. Even if the finder committed a tort (trespassing), the finder of lost property is entitled to possession against all but the true owner and the owner of the land on which it was found. Third parties may not claim it. See Anderson v. Gouldberg. Land owners often have a claim to the possession if it was embedded or affixed to their property. See Meteorite example.
D. Some lesiglatures have modified the common law on finders. Some have abolished the lost v. mislaid distinction and others have established the distinction between finding property in public and private places.
III. Bailments
A. Delivery of property by a bailor for a specific purpose to a bailee with the expectation the bailee will return it or give it to whomever as directed by the bailor. Doesn’t have to be consideration, but bailee must have:
1. Actual physical control
2. Intended to assume control (can be implied by conduct or words)
B. The bailee is liable for the property & any property therein included that the bailee might reasonably expect. E.g.., plumber takes his truck in to be serviced. Truck gets stolen & his tools are in it. Service station could reasonably expect a plumber would have tools in his truck. They are liable for the truck & tools. Not same result if I took a truck in. They would not expect me to have tools. E.g., Honeymooners in the French Quarter leave car in a hotel parking lot. Car gets stolen and all of their wedding gifts are in the trunk. Hotel is liable for the gifts even though they did not know they are there because the town in a vacation spot. Reasonable to expect there will be luggage and gifts in the trunk. Not same result in downtown Birmingham.
C. The bailee is responsible for exercising a standard of care that any reasonably prudent person would. Behave reasonable under the circumstances.
D. Just because the bailee was unaware of the value of an object, they obviously knew the identity of the object, and that is sufficient.
E. If bailee delivers the property to the wrong party, misdelivery, most jurisdictions hold that it doesn’t matter if bailee was voluntary or involuntary, they are liable irregardless. Some jurisdictions release an involuntary bailee if they reasonably thought wrong party was correct.
I. First Possession
a. Acquisition by Discovery
First Possession
Quiet Title
Chain of Title
First in Time
First Possession: Property that belonged to no one before it was owned by someone. Question: How does Property start? Where does Property begin?
Locke viewed the entire world as “up for grabs”.
Acquisition by Discovery:
In Johnson v. M’Intosh, court is trying to determine who owns the real property now.
Quiet Title cases are cases in which courts attempt to determine who the rightful owner of property is.
Indians had no power to sell or convey this property to Johnson. Can Indians sell property to an individual?
Grantee—Person receiving property
Grantor—Person selling or giving property
Court notes that you can’t transfer greater rights to property than you have. Since they didn’t have ownership, they couldn’t transfer the title.
Marshall points out that Discovery gives title to European nations as against other European nations. Native Americans have the right to be there, to occupy the land.
EU v. EU, Europeans wanted to avoid conflict between them. Europeans have right to extinguish the Native Americans’ right to property by conquest or purchase. Only a country has the right to full title of property.
The United States endorses the principal of Acquisition by Discovery. Too much time has gone by in order to rule otherwise.
Occupants have the right to use the land, but they do not have the right of title. If European nations are the only ones who can buy the land, they can set their own price.
Today, conquest is a somewhat illegitimate means to acquire property. Can discovery still apply today?
Think about relationship between property and government.
First in Time: Very important concept in law and in property. May not have been the best system at the time of European expansion, but it was used at the time.
There are no immediately apparent better options so why not go with it?
Descriptive versus Normative: Descriptive principle describes something and the normative principle sets out the justification and policy underlying.
Labor Theory of Property:
This theory was popularized by John Locke. If one put work towards property, you should get something back. You own yourself, so if you expend your labor, you acquire what is gained through your labor. What if someone puts in a little bit of labor, but by luck acquires a lot? Should they be allowed to keep it? What if you labor a lot, but accidentally for someone else, what’s the right course of action?
If A chops down B’s trees and creates flower boxes, a court would rule that B is entitled to the boxes unless A knowingly took B’s trees or if A’s work sufficiently increases the value of B’s raw materials.
The owner of the canvas is entitled to damages most likely in the amount of the canvas before it was transformed into the valuable painting. (Awarded to the person who supplied the principal material).
Property confers power. You own the property, you have the power and conversely if you have the power, you often get the property.
Government controls what property rights and rules are. Remember that property is about relationships, not about things; it is about the relationship between the owner of a certain property and everyone else who is not the owner. Possession is an instrumental concept.
Who is first? What counts as
f Finders: Think more of acquisition by capture, relates more to that. Goals: Determine what constitutes legal possession in this context. It is an issue of sorting out different parties’ interests in a certain context.
Generally, the prior finder will have greater title over any subsequent finders.
Relativity of title: Among two parties, the two at hand, who has the greater title as in relation to the other? The Court in Armory reserves the ability to return the item to the rightful original owner. The court wants to resolve issues that might arise in certain self-help situations. Goal is getting item back to original owner, but we want to encourage people to come forward as finders. If a finder is scared they’re going to lose something, they will hide it. They want to promote a policy where items have the best possibility of getting back to the original owner.
Best evidence of ownership is that you possess it. We want to protect the idea of prior possession.
In Armory, if the original owner comes along, the true owner could recover the monies that the sweep was awarded.
True owner v. goldsmith—the true owner has the better title.
Bailment vs. voluntary bailment: Involuntary bailment, you don’t get the chance to check out the bailee. With voluntary bailment, you can inspect and make an informed decision about to whom you give bailee’s rights too. (Allocation of risk, even if you were fooled, doesn’t matter)
The goldsmith dealt with the chimney sweep, he had a chance to check out the sweep, ask where he got the jewels? The true owner had no opportunity to do so. It seems that the true owner should have recourse against the goldsmith. If the goldsmith has to pay the true owner, he can have recourse against the chimney sweep.
Ownership in Staffordshire is established that the owner of the locus is entitled to everything attached to or under the land. The court ruled that the rings belonged to the water company and not Sharman because Sharman was acting as an agent (in the employ) of the water company.
Hannah was not Peel’s employee and the brooch was not attached to the property. Doesn’t matter if the owner knows of an object’s existence or not.
Man possess everything that is attached to or under his land; he does not necessarily own something that is unattached to the land.
*Adopt rules, tie them together, don’t cop out and ignore all the precedent you’ve cited*
Typically, lost articles go to the owners of property. Probably came into play the fact that Peel had never actually occupied the house.
If Hannah had been a trespasser, we would say that Peel would have had “constructive” possession of the house. Relativity of title, Peel’s title is definite better than that of a trespasser; however, Hannah has a better title (as occupier of the house), as in relation to Peel.
