Property
Class Notes
Let’s
do the problem!
One
question I failed to consider was whether there was a bailment at all. Did a
bailment exist? A bailment requires
that the bailee actually take possession of the good with intent to possess or
control. Did Diana deliver possession of
the item to Irene? If this actually was
a bailment, how would we classify it?
Irene would argue that it was a gratuitous bailment for the benefit of
the bailor. In that case, Irene is only liable
if she was grossly negligent.
The
main idea is that there are different standards of care depending on how you
classify the bailment.
Then,
on the other hand, there is a letter.
Irene only knew that she had possession of a letter, but she didn’t know
what was inside it. What’s the
issue? Well, just what did Irene take
possession of? Did she take possession
of the envelope, or the envelope and its contents? It’s a question of intent. This question arises often. If you ever read the contracts on the back of
claim checks when you pick up your car, it always says that the garage owner
isn’t liable for theft or damage to the contents of your car.
So
what was Irene’s intention with respect to the money? This is something a court would have to
wrestle with. Was there an implied bailment? Irene wasn’t just the bailee for the
envelope. The envelope itself was
worthless. It’s only the contents that
have some value and may carry some liability if you lose them.
Finders – the holding of Armory
Say
Joe finds a watch. Then Joe loses the
watch. Jane finds the watch, and Joe
sues Jane for the return of the watch.
So who is the rightful owner?
What do we find out from Armory?
The finder will win out against anybody except the true owner. If that’s the rule, then who wins in the
hypothetical? No help there!
What
about the second holding? It says that a
prior possessor prevails against a subsequent possessor who is not the true
owner. This isn’t what the court said in
Armory! How can we infer this rule?
This
case seems really simple, but it’s not!
What’s really the holding of the case?
Who was the true owner in Armory?
Nobody knows! Even though the
finder prevails against all but the true owner, and that’s what the court
states, this must be at least partly dictum because the true owner isn’t before
the court!
How
about a third version of the holding? A
prior possessor who is a finder prevails against a subsequent possessor who is
a bailee. In other words, a finder
prevails over a bailee.
The
parties before the court were a finder and a subsequent possession. Anything that is said about the true owner
must be dicta!
So…Braunstein
claims that we can’t resolve our simple hypothetical based solely on Armory! How are we going to resolve the case? We’re going to look at the public policy
reasoning behind the rule of Armory.
The court wanted to encourage public order, protect finders’ reasonable expectations,
minimize the effect on the law of bailments, and secure the return of the item
to the true owner.
The
fourth policy justification suggests that we want to find for the first finder,
because in some sense the first finder is closer
to the true owner. The public order goal
also pushes towards giving the thing to the first finder.
Braunstein
is trying to make the point that you frequently cannot resolve cases just by
looking at the rule. Often, there are
multiple plausible holdings of a precedent-setting case, and these holdings may
be in conflict. Therefore, you must look
for a “higher authority” and consider the public
policy justification for the rule.
Peel
buys a house. It’s taken by eminent
domain for the war, released, and taken again.
Hannah finds this brooch in the house.
He informs his commanding officer, and then turns the brooch into the
police. The police eventually turn over
the brooch not to Hannah, but to Peel, the property owner, who sells it. Hannah sues Peel! What’s the issue?
Don’t
forget, the only rule we have at this point is the rule of prior possession. Who is the
prior (first) possessor? Is it the owner
of the house (the locus in quo or
place in question)? Or is it the finder?
The
court goes through a sort of messy analysis.
The judge never tells us how the cases he refers to are applicable to the
facts of the present case.
The
judge starts with Bridges v. Hawkesworth. In that case, some money was found on the
floor of a shop. The finder turns it
over to the shopkeeper. They can’t find
the true owner. So the question is: who
is entitled to possession of the notes?
It turned out that the notes went to the finder. The shopkeeper didn’t have possession as
against the owner. What the court is
saying is that if the true owner sued the shopkeeper because the notes went
missing, the true owner would lose. The
shopkeeper never accepted possession of the notes and never knew of their existence. The court leaps to the conclude that because
the shopkeeper didn’t have possession against the true owner, the shopkeeper
didn’t have possession against the finder either. This is
a big logical leap. It might be
right, but it fails to take into account the relativity of possession.
What
else do we learn from Bridges v.
Hawkesworth? Just because you’re the
owner of land doesn’t mean you’re the owner of everything that sits on the
land. So Peel is not necessarily going to win just because he’s
the owner of the house. So the owner of
the locus in quo doesn’t always possess things found on the land. The owner doesn’t win in Bridges; the finder wins!
Later we’ll find out that the holding of Bridges was limited to public places. Then the question becomes whether or not a shop is a public place.
How
do we characterize the house in Hannah?
How do we characterize a hospital?
Whether it’s public or private will make a difference.
What
is the relevance of intent? What was the
intent of the shopkeeper? One thing we
can get out of this case is that possession, as elusive a concept as it is, has
something to do with intent. The judge in this case quotes Oliver Wendell
Holmes, who says two types of intent must be present in order for there to be
possession: (1) intent to appropriate (use)
and (2) intent to exclude (exert
exclusive control; keep others from using property).
If
you don’t know something is there,
you can’t intend to appropriate it for your own use or intend to exclude
others.
Braunstein
has a problem with this case: Couldn’t Peel have claimed to have the intent to
appropriate everything in the house? Peel was compensated for the use of the
house, but that doesn’t mean he intended to give up any of the stuff not
related to the government’s occupation.
We don’t know what Peel’s intent was.
So Bridges doesn’t take us
very far, and judge doesn’t say why the case is relevant.
The
court makes a big deal out of the fact that Peel never occupied the house.
Does
Armory
help? What about Pierson? In Pierson, the court acted as though there was no
owner of the locus in quo (the
beach).
What
about
When
you possess land, you get everything attached to or under the land. In Hannah, the brooch was neither.
When
the locus in quo is private property
from which the public is excluded, then the trespasser doesn’t get to keep what
he finds. But that wasn’t the case in Hannah.
Also,
the employee was doing something sort of “beyond the scope of his employment”. The employee wasn’t invited on the property
for the purpose of finding lost things.
How would that apply to Hannah? Hannah
wasn’t in Peel’s house to find stuff. He
was there to do army stuff like hanging up blackout curtains. If that’s the rationale for