Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Hannah v. Peel case brief

1. Freehold conveyed to Def., who from 1938-1940 never occupied the house.
2. 1940, Pl. stationed at the house. On the 21st of August, found a brooch. His wife said may be of value while at home on leave.
3. Oct. 1940, informed commanding officer, who advised him to hand over brooch to police, which he did.
4. August 1942, owner not found, Police handed brooch to Def, who sold it for L66, later sold for L88.
5. No evidence that Def. had any knowledge of brooch before found by Pl.
6. Def. offered Pl. a reward for brooch, Pl. refused: maintained his right to possession of the brooch as against all persons other than the owner, who was unknown.
7. Oct 5, 1942-demand letter from solicitors for returning of brooch to Pl.
8. Def. claimed he was the owner of the House and in possession of the brooch for that reason.
-Armory v. Delamirie: “the finder of a jewel, though he does not by such finding acquire an absolute property or ownership, yet he has such a property as will enable him to keep it against all but the rightful owner, and consequently may maintain trover.”
-Bridges v. Hawkesworth: The place in which a lost article is found does not constitute any exception to the general rule of law, that the finder is entitled to it as against all persons except the owner”
Judgement for the Pl. for L66.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Landmark Personal Injury Lawsuits and Their Lasting Impact

According to a Forbes article, personal injury lawsuits are civil actions brought by an injured person against the party responsible for the...