Finder's Cases
Run consultation |
Check Fact Cross References |
Check Fact Translations
PERSON the finder
PERSON the non-finder
GOAL RULE the finder wins PROVIDES
DETERMINE the finder wins
RULE trespasser rule PROVIDES
IF the finder is a trespasser THEN the finder does not win
EXAMPLE Armory v Delamirie [1722] EWHC KB J94 PROVIDES
the finder wins ONLY IF
the finder was not the occupier of the premises AND
the chattel was not attached AND
the non-finder was not the owner of the real estate AND
the non-finder was not the owner of the chattel AND
there was a bailment of the chattel AND
there was not a term in a lease which mentioned found items AND
there was not a master-servant relationship between the parties AND
the chattel was not hidden AND
there was not an attempt to find the true owner of the chattel AND
there was prior knowledge of the existence of the chattel
EXAMPLE Bridges v Hawkesworth (1851) 21 LJQB 75 PROVIDES
the finder wins ONLY IF
the finder was not the occupier of the premises AND
the chattel was not attached AND
the non-finder was the owner of the real estate AND
the non-finder was not the owner of the chattel AND
there was a bailment of the chattel AND
there was not a term in a lease which mentioned found items AND
there was not a master-servant relationship between the parties AND
the chattel was not hidden AND
there was an attempt to find the true owner of the chattel AND
there was not prior knowledge of the existence of the chattel
EXAMPLE Elwes v Brigg Gas (1886) 33 Ch D 562 PROVIDES
the finder does not win ONLY IF
the finder was the occupier of the premises AND
the chattel was attached AND
the non-finder was the owner of the real estate AND
the non-finder was not the owner of the chattel AND
there was not a bailment of the chattel AND
there was a term in a lease which mentioned found items AND
there was not a master-servant relationship between the parties AND
the chattel was hidden AND
there was an attempt to find the true owner of the chattel AND
there was not prior knowledge of the existence of the chattel
EXAMPLE Hannah v Peel [1945] KB 509 PROVIDES
the finder wins ONLY IF
the finder was not the occupier of the premises AND
the chattel was not attached AND
the non-finder was the owner of the real estate AND
the non-finder was not the owner of the chattel AND
there was not a bailment of the chattel AND
there was not a term in a lease which mentioned found items AND
there was not a master-servant relationship between the parties AND
the chattel was hidden AND
there was an attempt to find the true owner of the chattel AND
there was not prior knowledge of the existence of the chattel
EXAMPLE Corporation of London v Yorkwin [1963] 1 WLR 982 PROVIDES
the finder does not win ONLY IF
the finder was the occupier of the premises AND
the chattel was attached AND
the non-finder was the owner of the real estate AND
the non-finder was not the owner of the chattel AND
there was a bailment of the chattel AND
there was a term in a lease which mentioned found items AND
there was not a master-servant relationship between the parties AND
the chattel was hidden AND
there was an attempt to find the true owner of the chattel AND
there was not prior knowledge of the existence of the chattel
EXAMPLE Moffatt v Kazana [1969] 2 QB 152 PROVIDES
the finder does not win ONLY IF
the finder was the occupier of the premises AND
the chattel was not attached AND
the non-finder was not the owner of the real estate AND
the non-finder was the owner of the chattel AND
there was not a bailment of the chattel AND
there was not a term in a lease which mentioned found items AND
there was not a master-servant relationship between the parties AND
the chattel was hidden AND
there was an attempt to find the true owner of the chattel AND
there was prior knowledge of the existence of the chattel
EXAMPLE South Staffordshire Water Co v Sharman [1896] 2 QB 44 PROVIDES
the finder does not win ONLY IF
the finder was not the occupier of the premises AND
the chattel was attached AND
the non-finder was the owner of the real estate AND
the non-finder was not the owner of the chattel AND
there was not a bailment of the chattel AND
there was not a term in a lease which mentioned found items AND
there was a master-servant relationship between the parties AND
the chattel was hidden AND
there was an attempt to find the true owner of the chattel AND
there was not prior knowledge of the existence of the chattel
EXAMPLE Yorkwin v Appleyard [1963] 1 WLR 982 PROVIDES
the finder does not win ONLY IF
the finder was not the occupier of the premises AND
the chattel was attached AND
the non-finder was not the owner of the real estate AND
the non-finder was not the owner of the chattel AND
there was not a bailment of the chattel AND
there was not a term in a lease which mentioned found items AND
there was a master-servant relationship between the parties AND
the chattel was hidden AND
there was an attempt to find the true owner of the chattel AND
there was not prior knowledge of the existence of the chattel