herdofturtles (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
herdofturtles) wrote2024-08-13 06:18 pm
herdofturtles) wrote2024-08-13 06:18 pm
Property Rights: Lost and mislaid property
Immovable property is “real property” commonly called chattels. Realty.
movable property is “personal property.” Personality.
Full ownership is conceived as a “bundle of rights.” Holders of partial title only have part of the bundle, but they still have property rights that the law should protect. This spectrum of title rights is known as relativity of title.
II. Finders Law
A. Torah Law
The western legal system is loosely based on Deuteronomic Code. The Deuteronomic Code treats a situation in which the finder knows the identity of the true owner differently than if the owner is not known.
Deuteronomy 22:1-3
"If the finder knows the true owner, the finder must return the thing to the owner. If the owner does not live nearby, the finder must hold it for the owner until he comes looking for it. If the finder does not know who the owner is, the finder must safeguard it for the owner and return it when the owner appears."
B. Common Law
ARMORY v. DELAMIRIE
King's Bench, 1722
1 Str. 505
A chimney sweeper's boy found a jewel and took it to a goldsmith’s shop for evaluation. The smith’s apprentice offered the boy the money, but the boy refused to take the money and insisted to have the jewel again, so the apprentice delivered him back the socket without the stone.
The court must decide whether the finder of personal property has property rights to the found object over another possessor of the object who is not the original owner but also claims rights to it.
Rules Established:
1. R/C: The finder of an object does not by such finding acquire absolute property or ownership, but does have rights to that object against all others except the “rightful owner.”
2. A finder who prevails in trover against a subsequent possessor and who does not receive the object is entitled to be compensated based on the highest possible value of the object.
1. the court applied the R/C to hold the boy could prevail against the master. The court added that, although it was the apprentice who removed the stone from the ring, the master, as a matter of law, was responsible here for the actions of the apprentice (specifically “is answerable for this neglect”).
2. As to the value of damages, the court reasoned that the value should be based on “what a jewel of the finest water” (or the “best jewels”) that would fit the socket would be worth.
This case lays groundwork for rights of finders and measures of damages if D does not return the object
Trover: “common law action for the recovery of damages for conversion of personal property."
BRIDGES v. HAWKESWORTH
Queen's Bench, 1851
21 L.J.,N.S., 75
A traveller noticed and picked up a bank notes which were on the shop floor. He immediately told the shopkeeper to keep them to deliver to the owner. Three years passed and nobody claimed them, so the traveller asked for them. The shopkeeper refused to deliver them over.
The court must decide whether the circumstance of the notes being found inside his shop, gives him, the shopkeeper, the right to have them versus the traveller who found them.
Rules: See Armory v. Delamirie
- the court applied the R/C to hold the traveller could prevail against the shopkeeper. “If the shopkeeper has rights they must’ve went to him before the traveller found them, for that finding could not give the traveller any right.” The traveller must’ve first had custody of the notes to have rights.
- if the notes had intentionally been deposited there, then the shopkeeper would have some responsibility for the notes.
"We find, therefore, that the finder of a lost article is always entitled to it against all parties except the real owner." Finding something lost on another’s public property does not change Finder’s Law.
Replevin: “common law action for the recovery personal property taken wrongfully or unlawfully."
McAVOY v. MEDINA
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 1866
11 Allen 93
A customer in a barber’s shop found a wallet on the table and told the barber to hold it until owner came for it, which the barber promised to do. Later the customer made three demands for the wallet, and the barber said no. It was agreed that the wallet was placed upon the table by a transient customer and accidentally left there, and was first seen and taken up by the customer, and that the original owner had not been found.
The customer sued in replevin. Trial court: won; Appellate court: won; State supreme court: lost.
The court must decide whether property voluntarily placed in a location by the owner is the same as lost property.
Rules Established:
- the finder of lost property has a valid claim to the same against all the world except the true owner, and generally that the place in which it is found creates no exception to this rule.
- This item is not lost property, but is instead “mislaid property.” The facts suggest the owner did not lose the item, but merely forgot the item.
- Property shouldn’t be treated as lost property when the property was voluntarily placed on a premises and accidentally left the same there and has never called for it.
- mislaid property is entrusted to the custody of in locus quo by the original owner, giving rights to the owner in locus quo before the finder.
- the pocket book was placed on the table in the barber’s shop, a place clearly placed with intent by the owner. The item was entrusted to the custody of the Barber’s shop.
- this item is mislaid property, the owner of In Locus Quo has rights to the item before the finder, thus the pocket book goes to the barber.
Finding something misplaced on another’s property changes Finder’s Law. The owner of in locus quo has property rights over the finder in the case of misplaced items due to having custody of the item before the finder.
Develops an exception to a rule: there is a difference between losing and forgetting something in Finder’s Law.
movable property is “personal property.” Personality.
Full ownership is conceived as a “bundle of rights.” Holders of partial title only have part of the bundle, but they still have property rights that the law should protect. This spectrum of title rights is known as relativity of title.
II. Finders Law
A. Torah Law
The western legal system is loosely based on Deuteronomic Code. The Deuteronomic Code treats a situation in which the finder knows the identity of the true owner differently than if the owner is not known.
Deuteronomy 22:1-3
"If the finder knows the true owner, the finder must return the thing to the owner. If the owner does not live nearby, the finder must hold it for the owner until he comes looking for it. If the finder does not know who the owner is, the finder must safeguard it for the owner and return it when the owner appears."
B. Common Law
King's Bench, 1722
1 Str. 505
A chimney sweeper's boy found a jewel and took it to a goldsmith’s shop for evaluation. The smith’s apprentice offered the boy the money, but the boy refused to take the money and insisted to have the jewel again, so the apprentice delivered him back the socket without the stone.
The court must decide whether the finder of personal property has property rights to the found object over another possessor of the object who is not the original owner but also claims rights to it.
Rules Established:
1. R/C: The finder of an object does not by such finding acquire absolute property or ownership, but does have rights to that object against all others except the “rightful owner.”
2. A finder who prevails in trover against a subsequent possessor and who does not receive the object is entitled to be compensated based on the highest possible value of the object.
1. the court applied the R/C to hold the boy could prevail against the master. The court added that, although it was the apprentice who removed the stone from the ring, the master, as a matter of law, was responsible here for the actions of the apprentice (specifically “is answerable for this neglect”).
2. As to the value of damages, the court reasoned that the value should be based on “what a jewel of the finest water” (or the “best jewels”) that would fit the socket would be worth.
This case lays groundwork for rights of finders and measures of damages if D does not return the object
Trover: “common law action for the recovery of damages for conversion of personal property."
Queen's Bench, 1851
21 L.J.,N.S., 75
A traveller noticed and picked up a bank notes which were on the shop floor. He immediately told the shopkeeper to keep them to deliver to the owner. Three years passed and nobody claimed them, so the traveller asked for them. The shopkeeper refused to deliver them over.
The court must decide whether the circumstance of the notes being found inside his shop, gives him, the shopkeeper, the right to have them versus the traveller who found them.
Rules: See Armory v. Delamirie
- the court applied the R/C to hold the traveller could prevail against the shopkeeper. “If the shopkeeper has rights they must’ve went to him before the traveller found them, for that finding could not give the traveller any right.” The traveller must’ve first had custody of the notes to have rights.
- if the notes had intentionally been deposited there, then the shopkeeper would have some responsibility for the notes.
"We find, therefore, that the finder of a lost article is always entitled to it against all parties except the real owner." Finding something lost on another’s public property does not change Finder’s Law.
Replevin: “common law action for the recovery personal property taken wrongfully or unlawfully."
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 1866
11 Allen 93
A customer in a barber’s shop found a wallet on the table and told the barber to hold it until owner came for it, which the barber promised to do. Later the customer made three demands for the wallet, and the barber said no. It was agreed that the wallet was placed upon the table by a transient customer and accidentally left there, and was first seen and taken up by the customer, and that the original owner had not been found.
The customer sued in replevin. Trial court: won; Appellate court: won; State supreme court: lost.
The court must decide whether property voluntarily placed in a location by the owner is the same as lost property.
Rules Established:
- the finder of lost property has a valid claim to the same against all the world except the true owner, and generally that the place in which it is found creates no exception to this rule.
- This item is not lost property, but is instead “mislaid property.” The facts suggest the owner did not lose the item, but merely forgot the item.
- Property shouldn’t be treated as lost property when the property was voluntarily placed on a premises and accidentally left the same there and has never called for it.
- mislaid property is entrusted to the custody of in locus quo by the original owner, giving rights to the owner in locus quo before the finder.
- the pocket book was placed on the table in the barber’s shop, a place clearly placed with intent by the owner. The item was entrusted to the custody of the Barber’s shop.
- this item is mislaid property, the owner of In Locus Quo has rights to the item before the finder, thus the pocket book goes to the barber.
Finding something misplaced on another’s property changes Finder’s Law. The owner of in locus quo has property rights over the finder in the case of misplaced items due to having custody of the item before the finder.
Develops an exception to a rule: there is a difference between losing and forgetting something in Finder’s Law.