South Staffordshire Waterworks Co. v. Sharman case, 2 Q.B.

44 (Queen’s Bench 1896)

Case Facts:

In 1831, a group of workers employed by the South Staffordshire Waterworks Company were
digging a trench when they discovered an old ring. The following day, two more rings were
found, and over the next few days, several more rings were unearthed. In total, the workers
discovered a cache of 344 gold rings, which were later determined to be part of a treasure trove
from the 17th century. The workers claimed ownership of the rings, arguing that they had
acquired possession by finding them.

Case Issue:

The main issue in this case was whether the workers, by virtue of finding and taking possession
of the gold rings, had acquired ownership over them, or whether the ownership remained with
the landowner, the South Staffordshire Waterworks Company.

Case Judgment:

The case was initially heard in the Court of Exchequer, which ruled in favour of the workers,
granting them ownership of the rings based on the principle of "finders’ keepers." However, the
company appealed the decision to the Court of Exchequer Chamber, which overturned the initial
ruling.

The Court of Exchequer Chamber held that the mere act of finding and taking possession of the
rings did not confer ownership upon the workers. According to the court, the ownership of the
rings remained with the landowner, the South Staffordshire Waterworks Company, as the rings
were part of the land and belonged to the company as the owner of the land.

The court distinguished between possession and ownership, stating that while the workers had
acquired possession of the rings by finding them, possession alone did not automatically grant
them ownership. Ownership is a separate legal concept that requires more than mere possession.

Significance and Jurisprudential Implications:

The South Staffordshire Waterworks Co. v. Sharman case is significant in jurisprudence because
it clarified the distinction between possession and ownership. While possession is a factual state
of having control over an object, ownership is a legal concept that involves a bundle of rights and
obligations over the object.

The case established the principle that the mere finding and taking possession of an object does
not automatically confer ownership rights upon the finder. Instead, ownership is determined by
legal principles, such as the ownership of the land where the object was found or the laws
governing abandoned property.

This case has had a lasting impact on property law and has been cited in subsequent cases
involving the ownership of found objects, treasure troves, and other disputed property matters. It
highlights the importance of understanding the legal concepts of possession and ownership and
their implications in resolving property disputes.

Bridges v. Hawkesworth, 21 L.J. Q.B. 75 (Queen’s Bench 1851).

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiff found banknotes on the floor of Defendant’s shop and left the notes with Defendant to
return to the proper owner, and, when the notes were unclaimed after three years, asked that the
notes be given to Plaintiff, a request which Defendant refused.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

The mere fact that the banknotes were found on the floor of Defendant’s shop was not sufficient
for the Defendant to retain possession of the notes against the claim of Plaintiff, the finder.

Facts.

Plaintiff was a traveller who conducted business with the Defendant at the shop of Defendant.
During one of Plaintiff’s visits, Plaintiff found a parcel of banknotes on the shop floor. Plaintiff
gave the banknotes over to Defendant for the purpose of returning the notes to the proper owner.
Three years elapsed with no one claiming the notes. Plaintiff then requested that the notes be
returned to Plaintiff, which Defendant refused. Plaintiff brought suit in trover. The lower court
ruled for the Defendant.

Issue.

Does the fact that the notes were found inside Defendant’s shop give him the right to keep them
against the claim of the Plaintiff, who found them?