Property—Possession And Finders—Majority/dissent Opinions

Front 1

Pierson v Post (1805)

Back 1

Maj: Wild animal isn't possessed until it's taken.
Diss: Policy reasons, need to encourage pest eradication.

Front 2

Armory v Delamirie (1722)

Back 2

The finder has a right superior to all but the true owner of the object.

Front 3

Hibbert v McKiernan (1948)

Back 3

AvD exception: When the occupier exercises sufficient control demonstrating both an intent to control for possession and an intention to exclude others, the occupier may have a right superior to the finder.

Front 4

Bridges v Hawkesworth (1857)

Back 4

Unless the chattel is attached to the land or building, the mere fact that the chattel is found in D’s shop doesn’t give him a right superior to the finder. (This assumes that he doesn’t know of the thing’s existence and that he doesn’t exercise sufficient control.)

Front 5

Elwes v Brigg Gas Company (1866)

Back 5

The occupier always has a right superior to the finder when the found object is attached to, or underneath, the land, regardless of the former's knowledge [or exercise of control].

Front 6

South Staffordshire Water Company v Sharman (1896)

Back 6

If a person has possession of a house or land with a manifest intention to exercise control over it and the objects which may be upon or in it, then there is a presumption that things found there are in the possession of the owner

Front 7

City of London Corporation v Appleyard (1963)

Back 7

Control what's attached to realty.