SUBSEQUENT POSSESSION:

ACQUISITION BY FIND
Hannah v. Peel

1. NAME OF CASE: Hannah v. Peel

2. CITATION: King’s Bench Division, 1945

[1945] K.B. 509

3. PARTIES: Hannah/Plaintiff/stationed at the locus in quo/Finder

Peel/Defendant/owner of the locus in quo (manor)/never took possession

4. OBJECTIVES: Plaintiff sought money damages or return of items from defendant. Defendant
sought to keep item and avoid paying damages to plaintiff.

5. LEGAL THEORIES: Plaintiff believes that he should prevail in ownership of the item over the
defendant because he found a lost item, to which belonged to an unidentified real owner, thus making
the plaintiff next in line of ownership behind the actual owner. Defendant believes that he should
prevail in ownership of the item over the Plaintiff because the item was found on his land.

6. PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Case brought to King’s Bench Division. Action tried by Birkett, J.
Related to Bridges v. Hawkesworth, South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman, and Elwes v. Briggs Gas
Co.

7. FACTS: Plaintiff found brooch while being stationed at the defendant’s house. Defendant owned
the house being used for quartering soldiers, but had never in his 2 years of prior ownership never
actually occupied the house. Defendant had no knowledge of the existence of the brooch until brought
to his attention by the plaintiff. Plaintiff took the brooch, and was advised by his commanding officer
to hand it over to the police. The actual owner of the brooch was never found by the police, and so they
handed over possession to defendant who resold it. The defendant offered an award to the plaintiff for
finding it, but plaintiff refused and maintained his right to possession.

8. ISSUE: Does the plaintiff have claim over the brooch that he found on the defendant’s property
because the actual owner was never identified, the defendant had never occupied the house, and the
defendant had no idea of its existence until it was found?

9. HOLDING: Yes

10. JUDGEMENT: Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of 66l. (Defendant sold brooch originally
for 88l).

11. REASONING: It is clear that the brooch was “lost” in the ordinary meaning of the word, that it
was “found” by the plaintiff in the ordinary meaning of the word, that its true owner has never been
found, that the defendant was the owner of the premises and had his notice drawn to this matter by the
plaintiff, who found the brooch. Thus, the general right of the finder to any article which has been lost,
 as against all the world, except the true owner, prevails.

12. COMMENTS:
Freehold: an estate in land held for life or with the right to pass it on through inheritance
Requisition: a requiring, as by right or authority; formal demand
Indemnity: repayment or reimbursement for loss, damage, etc.; compensation
Detinue: the unlawful detention of personal property which originally was rightfully acquired; an action
or writ for the recovery of property unlawfully detained
Locus in quo: (the) place in which
Chattel: a movable item of personal property

Key facts:

- Dec. 1938 – Major Peel bought Gwernhaylod House

- Oct. 1939 – The Crown requisitioned Gwernhaylord (as place to house troops)
- Aug. 1940 – Hannah found brooch
- Oct. 1940 – Hannah handed over brooch to police
- Aug. 1942 – Brooch turned over to Major Peel – (Major Peel of the locus in quo – place in question)
- Oct. 1942 – Peel sold brooch for 66pounds ($3800)

Precedent – based on stare decisis (let the decision stand) factually similar cases should be decided similarly

Bridges v. Hawkesworth

- Bank notes on floor in public shop

- ISSUE STATEMENT: Is the finder of lose bank notes found on the floor of a public shop entitled to
possession of the notes against the shop owner?
o Finder prevailed in this case
- Best protect the interest of the true owner? 1. Shop owner (lose something – likely to retrace your steps
– doesn’t encourage honesty) or 2. Customer (encourage honesty – bc if TO not found then gets to have
it)

South Stafford Water Co. v. Shurman

- Rings found in the bottom of pond

- ISSUE STATEMENT: Is a landowner entitled to possession of rings found in bottom of pond over the
finder when the landowner hired the finder to clean out a pound and the landowner didn’t know the rings
were there?
o Owner of locus in quo prevailed
- Possession of land carries with it possession of everything that is attached to or under that land.

The two seem factually similar – can those holdings be reconciled?

- Case senthesis – try to reconcile two cases that reached different results
- Public v. private
- Employee v. customer
 - Lying on the floor v. in the soil

Elwes v. Brigg Gas Co.

- Prehistoric boat embedded in the soil

- Landowner gets the boat
- True owner is long gone (prehistoric)

*main policy of finders – protection of the true owners interest!

Constructive possession – (abra-cadabra!) even if you didn’t know, you should have known

- What if major peel lived in the house before requisitioned.

o Owner of everything in, on it, or buried in the soil
o Occupier of the property has even stronger possessionary interest in everything found on the land
than the actual owner
o Expectation of ownership
- What if major peel not lived in the house, but Hannah found while trespassing on the property.
o Trespasser does not prevail over
o Peel cant have constructive possession bc didn’t live there
o But want to discourage trespassers

Do not use NEVER or ALWAYS in reference to the law!!! (multiple choice – can eliminate answers that
include never and always) – sometimes is not right or wrong answers – just have to spot issue and rule and
argue most points

Pay Close attention to the question asked

I – won’t know until you read the question on exam

R – know the rule already

A – where you get the most points

C – won’t know until go through process