1Property Outline
Preliminary Information:
Property = a bundle of rights held by a particular person in relation to a particular object
Not just the relationship between a person and an object or thing and the rights that a person may have, sometimes deals with the relationship between people and their respective rights in a particular object or thing
Bundle of rights:
$ Right to exclude – I own land, then the law will give me the right as the owner to exclude people from my property. Not absolute, can be limited in certain circumstances (e.g., I don’t have right to exclude the police; local utility companies)
$ Right to transfer – I have the right to transfer my rights in the piece of property to someone else; number of ways to do this (sell for consideration, bequeath to heirs in will, give the rights away as a gift). Not absolute – if I’m in bankruptcy or have many creditors, I cannot transfer rights in my property to avoid claims of my creditors.
$ Right to use and possess – If it’s mine, then I get to decide how I use it. Not absolute – There may be zoning regulations, etc.
Why protect ownership (of the true owner)?
• Leads to a civilized way to enforce ownership interest. This preserves the peace.
• Creates incentives, encourages people to own property, has economic benefits. People who have an incentive to own it will use it productively. Use it to its maximum economic benefit.
Why protect possession?
• Also protects the peace.
• May make it easier for the true owner to find it at some point, so may make it better for the true owner.
• More subtle reason: the best proof of ownership is possession. I can’t prove in a court of law through documentary evidence that I own it, but I can prove that I possessed it prior to you. With real property there is a recording system to establish chains of ownership, but with personal property it is difficult to prove by documentation. Therefore, possession has to be proof. Protection of possession leads to protection of ownership.
Purpose of Cause of Action
Real Property
Personal Property
to get property back
ejectment
replevin
to get monetary damages
trespass
trover
I. Subsequent Possession: Acquisition of Property by Find, Adverse Possession, and Gift
A. Acquisition by Find
Note: Finder’s law protects rights of possession, as opposed to rights of ownership.
1. Armory v. Delamirie, King’s Bench, 1722 (chimney sweep jewel finder case, trover action)
a. Legal Issue: Whether the finder of property has a right to that property above all except the rightful owner
b. Rule: Finder of the property has a superior right to the property over all except the true owner.
c. Sub-rule: In determining value of the property, the stolen property should be presumed to be of the highest value possible, i.e., err in favor of the finder, to determine damages.
2. B
ot occupy the property and is not aware of the existence of the chattel, belongs to the finder or to the owner of the real property on which it was found.
b. Rule: When a person finds a piece of lost chattel on property owned by someone else, but the real property is not in physical possession of the owner and the owner is unaware of the existence of the lost object, then the object belongs to the finder over the property owner.
c. Important cases cited in Hannah v. Peel:
(1) Bridges v. Hawkesworth (bank notes found on floor case)
(a) At first glance, this case supports what the court did in Hannah. However, the facts in Hannah can be distinguished here because the article was found on private property instead of a place where the public was invited to come and go. There is a sense that the owner of private property may have more right to lost property found on the premises. The problem with Peel making this argument is that he never occupied and/or was in physical possession of the house.
(2) South Staffordshire Water v. Sharman (two rings embedded in the “pool” case)
(a) Seems to support Peel’s case, but in this case (1) article was found in the ground; and (2) the finder was acting as an agent of the property owner.
McAvoy v. Medina, Mass. Sup. Ct., 1866 (barber shop case; McAvoy = finder,
