• Print
  • finders accounts for 7 out of 736 casebriefs.

Style of causeRatio

Armory v Delamirie [1722] EWHC J94, (1722) 1 Strange 505.

He has a property right that is not absolute or an ownership right, but will enable him to keep it from others.

Chappell v United States (2000), 119 F Supp 2d 1013, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16599

In cases of ownerless property, first finder of the property gets rights.

Charrier v Bell (1986), 496 So.2d 601 (Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit)

Objects interred with the dead are not abandoned; such objects are intended to remain in the ground.

Keron v Cashman (1896), 33 A 1055 (NJ Eq).

Yes, one must know about a lost object in order to have found it in the legal sense. It is the moment of convergence between control and intention.

Parker v British Airways Board, [1982] 1 QB 1004

In order for a person to assert a recovery claim, that person must demonstrate manifest control.

Touro Synagogue v Goodwill Industries (1957), 96 So 2d 29 (LA Supreme Court)

Cemetery land can be sold only if buried remains are reinterred elsewhere.

Trachuk v Olinek (1995), 36 Alta LR (3d) 225 (QB)

As per the Parker case, finders only acquire rights if:
** A. The good is lost or abandoned
** B. The finder takes the object into care and control.

The court will consider the follwing:
** 1. Was the object lost / abandoned?
** 2. Did the finder take the item into care and control?
** 3. Was the item acquired through dishonesty or trespass?
** 4. Were steps taken to reacquaint object with true owner?
** 5. Was the object on the land, or buried?
** 6. Did the occupier of the land have manifest intent over the land where the object was found? (Sufficient possession?)
** 7. Did the occupier have the right to possess the property where the object was found?