Clark v. Maloney case brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
3
Del. 68
CASE SYNOPSIS: Plaintiff brought an
action in trover to recover the value of logs found floating by
plaintiff, taken possession of, moored, and afterwards found in the
possession of defendants, who refused to give them up, claiming
possession because they had found the logs adrift and
floating.
FACTS: Plaintiff found logs floating and moored them; subsequently they were in the possession of defendants, who refused to give them up, contending they had found them adrift, and asserting a sufficient property in the logs as to any but the original owner.
HOLDING:
The court held that possession, while prima facie evidence of property, could be rebutted by evidence of better title.
ANALYSIS:
Therefore, a finder acquired such a property right as would enable him to keep it against all but the rightful owner. However, the loss of the chattel did not change plaintiff's right of property, just as the original loss by the rightful owner did not change his absolute property. Accordingly, the subsequent loss did not divest the special property of plaintiff. Plaintiff, having shown a special property, unabandoned, which enabled him to keep it against all the world but the rightful owner, was entitled to a verdict.
CONCLUSION: Plaintiff's possession was good against all but the original owner, and having shown a special property, unabandoned, was entitled to a verdict in his favor.
FACTS: Plaintiff found logs floating and moored them; subsequently they were in the possession of defendants, who refused to give them up, contending they had found them adrift, and asserting a sufficient property in the logs as to any but the original owner.
HOLDING:
The court held that possession, while prima facie evidence of property, could be rebutted by evidence of better title.
ANALYSIS:
Therefore, a finder acquired such a property right as would enable him to keep it against all but the rightful owner. However, the loss of the chattel did not change plaintiff's right of property, just as the original loss by the rightful owner did not change his absolute property. Accordingly, the subsequent loss did not divest the special property of plaintiff. Plaintiff, having shown a special property, unabandoned, which enabled him to keep it against all the world but the rightful owner, was entitled to a verdict.
CONCLUSION: Plaintiff's possession was good against all but the original owner, and having shown a special property, unabandoned, was entitled to a verdict in his favor.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment