The defendant, Major Hugh E. E. Peel, owned Gwernhaylod House in Overton-on-Dee,
Shropshire. It was requisitioned for military use not long after the Second
World War began since he purchased it in December 1938 but did not move in. The
complainant, Lance-Corporal Duncan Hannah of the Royal Artillery, stayed at the
residence in August 1940 while on military duty. LCpl Hannah discovered a brooch
on top of a window frame when he was there.
Based on its filthy, cobwebby
condition, the brooch has been there for a long time. Following advice from his
commanding officer, LCpl Hannah turned the item over to the police. The police
gave Major Peel the brooch in August 1942 when no one claimed it. Afterwards,
Peel sold it for 66. LCpl Maj Peel was requested for this cash by Hannah. Peel
gave Hannah a prize, but he declined and preferred the brooch. Maj. Peel claimed
ownership of the brooch since he owned the structure where it was discovered.
LCpl Hannah filed the lawsuit to contest this.
- Does the plaintiff have a legal claim against the defendant, who owned
the home where the brooch was discovered but never lived there, for locating
- Who is the rightful owner of the brooch?
- If an object is discovered on real estate, but the owner has never lived
there, does that thing belong to them or does it belong to the person who
discovered it while renting the space?
Even when the items are not in the possession of anybody else, a landowner owns
anything attached to or buried beneath the property, but not necessarily
anything lying on the surface. Plaintiff's finding was defendable against all
persons other than the legal owner since the defendant was never really present
in the residence.
The Court recalls a similar instance in which the plaintiff discovered cash on
the floor of the defendant's store, and the defendant refused to give the
plaintiff the cash because the rightful owner could not be determined. In that
case, the Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff without distinguishing whether
it had been discovered at a store or the defendant's residence. Said that the
plaintiff was entitled to the money since the defendant was not the rightful
owner and was unaware of its existence.
This last case, which is notable because it was a business, has been overruled
by some precedent. This should not be the case in any case. In rare
circumstances, the Court has held that items found on a landowner's property
belong to the owner. On this matter, there is no definite authority. However,
the brooch was misplaced before being discovered by the plaintiff.
Neither the brooch nor the property was physically in the defendant's
possession, and the defendant was unaware of the brooch. As a result, the
plaintiff is the legitimate owner. When a lost item is discovered on real
property, the owner has no right to claim it unless he is in actual possession
and is aware of the object's presence. Yes. Plaintiff receives 66 pounds in
payment for the brooch.
The first rule of law is stated in the case of South Staffordshire Water Co.
infra. It states that as long as the property owner has control
over the property, a person who finds an object while working for the owner
finds it for the owner and not for himself. The Court must choose this rule.
Since the defendant, in this instance, never truly lived there, and he does not
possess all of the objects found loose on his land, the Court decided not to
apply this rule in this case. The Court applies the alternative legal principle
in Bridges v. Hawkesworth
, ibid, in the present instance. Since the
defendant had never lived there, he or she was not entitled to claim previous
possession of the brooch. In this case, the plaintiff's actions were
The brooch was "lost" in the sense that the word is frequently used, and the
plaintiff "found" the brooch in the sense that finding is often used. The
original owner of the brooch was informed when it was recovered, but they have
never been able to track them down. The Court rules that Bridges v.
, ibid, applies and that the plaintiff should get a judgment for
The important thing was that even though the defendant never lived there, the
plaintiff gave him a chance to claim the brooch. Additionally, it should be
noted that the plaintiff did not trespass to discover the brooch. The Court
carefully considers the evidence, drawing. Numerous comparisons and
The more contentious Bridges v. Hawkesworth
decision is considered after
the Armoury v. Delamire
ruling. In the latter instance, it is stated that
the "finders' keepers except to the true owner" rule applies regardless of where
the object is located. The third example, however, is at odds with the first
two. In South Staffordshire
Water Co. v. Sharman
, it was determined that the finder did not receive
the rings since they were a piece of the real estate, as it were (see. Lord of
the Rings). The rings were discovered embedded in some muck at the bottom of a
pool. There was no dissenting opinion concerning the case.
Journals And Articles
Award Winning Article Is Written By: Mr.Kartik Tripathi
Authentication No: JU353012404452-13-0623