Hannah v. Peel
King’s
Bench, 1945.
1
K.B. 509.
Johnson,
pp. 32-37
Facts: The defendant’s manor was
requisitioned by the military for use in World War II. A soldier staying there found a brooch. He turned it in to the police. When the owner couldn’t be found, the brooch
was turned over to the owner of the manor instead of the solider. The manor owner sold it. The solider sued the manor owner for the
value of the brooch, claiming “finders keepers”. The manor owner’s defense is that he has
superior title to the brooch because it was found on his property.
Issue: Who has superior title to
the brooch?
Rule: NEW(ish) RULE! A landowner owns everything attached to or under the land, but not necessarily stuff lying on the surface of
the land even though the stuff isn’t possessed by someone else.
Analysis: The court pours over the
authorities, doing a lot of analogizing and distinguishing. The court first considers the rule of Armory v.
Delamire, then the more controversial Bridges v. Hawkesworth. The
latter case says that the “finders keepers except to the true owner” rule
applies no matter where the item is found.
But then there is a third case that seems
to be in conflict. In South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman,
some rings were found embedded in some mud at the bottom of a pool (c.f. Lord
of the Rings), and it was ruled that the finder didn’t get them because they
were a part of the real estate, as it were.
The
court eventually comes to the rule above, and thus finds for the plaintiff.
Conclusion: The soldier gets the value
of the brooch.
Notes
and Questions
1. Major Peel seems to have a
couple of strikes against him: the plaintiff’s conduct was “meritorious” and
Peel never lived in the manor. It seems
like if Peel actually had lived in the manor, he could claim (even if falsely) that
he knew the brooch was there, and thus possessed it just as he would any other
personal property stored in the house.
Matthew’s advice probably isn’t very useful legally. If you find the treasure, you should take the
treasure with you instead of buying the field.
If you plan to buy the field, but someone else digs up the treasure
first, then you’ll lose out. I’m sure
that’s not what Matt meant, though.
2. There are two different ways
to read South Staffordshire and distinguish
it from Bridges: (1) The finder in South Staffordshire was an employee of
the landowners, and therefore the rings that were found become the property of
the employer rather than the employee, or (2) the rings were not lying
unattached on the land, but rather were “buried” under the mud, and thus were
part of the landowner’s real estate interest.
I think the court makes a good argument for why the rulings are indeed
reconcilable. The court in Bridges said that the money was lost rather than mislaid, that is, it wasn’t left intentionally. The law of
bailments therefore said that possession went to the finder instead of the landowner.
3. If we assume that the
chimney sweep’s boy was employed by the tavern owner, then under one
interpretation of South Staffordshire
the jewel belongs to the tavern owner.
However, the chimney sweep’s boy could argue that South Staffordshire stands for the proposition that buried stuff belongs to the landowner,
but loose stuff doesn’t, and thus the jewel belongs to him. On the other hand, the tavern owner could
attempt to distinguish Hannah by
saying that he was in possession of the tavern, unlike Peel who never lived in
his manor. The tavern owner could argue
that Peel would have prevailed in that case if he had possession of the manor,
and thus that the tavern owner should win in this case.
If the tavern owner and chimney sweep’s boy both come to the jeweler, it seems
like the proper thing to do would be to turn the jewel over to the police in
anticipation of the matter being resolved in court.
4. Here are the four
categories:
a. Lost
– The true owner has been unintentionally
dispossessed of the property. The finder
has better title to lost stuff than anyone except the true owner.
b. Mislaid – The true owner intentionally
left the stuff sitting around, intending to pick it up, but forgot. In this case, the owner of the property where the stuff is found has better title to
the stuff than anyone except the true owner.
c. Abandoned – The previous owner intentionally gave up the property and left it
lying around so that someone else could acquire it. For example, if you leave furniture on the
curb to be picked up by the garbage truck, it could be understood to be
abandoned property. The finder of such
property has an unqualified right to it.
d. Treasure trove – This one is like pirate booty!
If you find hidden treasure that has been hidden for so long that it
would be impossible to find the true owner, then the treasure is awarded to the
finder as long as they weren’t trespassing.
5. Okay!