Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

8 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Meteor claimed by friend of lesee, then sold. As an “unowned thing,” finders of lost articles that belong to the earth are the owners, except of the true owner (owner of the land on which the moveable is found). The plaintiff is the true owner of the “stone” (not a “movable”).
Goddard v. Winchell
P found Steamboat, marked with bouy and trees, didn't return. D claimed cargo. Held: The court requires finders of abandoned property to fully occupy the property to assume ownership rights.
Eads v. Brazelton
Mr. Keeble owned Minott’s Meadow and built a decoy pond to attract wildfowl for a hunters’ resort. Mr. Hickeringill discharged his gun several times from the side of the pond in order to scare away the ducks. Mr. Keeble sued for the damages to his business. Held: The court ruled that someone hindering another’s business is liable to an action for redress.
Keeble v Hickeringill
Mr. Post was pursuing a fox during a hunt on a beach when Mr. Pierson killed the fox and carried it off. Mr. Post sued for damages on the grounds that he had acquired possession of the fox by pursuing it with his hounds. Held: Mr. Pierson had not inflicted injury or damages for which a legal remedy could be applied.
Pierson v Post
P is in pursuit of mortally wounded wolf; defendant came up, shot the wolf, and took it away. P-had possession; escape was highly improbable from the wound that the P had inflicted on the wolf.
Liesner v. Wanib
FACTS The plaintiff was a chimney sweeper’s boy who found a jewel and brought it to the defendant’s goldsmith shop for valuation. The master offered the boy three halfpence, but the boy refused and requested the jewel’s return. The master’s apprentice returned only the socket without the stone. The boy sued to recover the stone.

ISSUE Whether the finder of an abandoned good becomes the rightful owner and may recover from the good’s theft.

HOLDING The court found a verdict for the plaintiff, with damages in the value of the best jewels.
Armory v Delamirie
FACTS The plaintiffs owned a pool and hired the defendant to clean the pool. During the course of cleaning, the defendant found two gold rings in the mud at the bottom of the pool. The plaintiffs sued to recover the rings. ISSUE Whether land owners have a right of possession to property found on their land by their employees. RULE OF LAW The court ruled that possession of land includes the general possession of everything which is attached to or under the land. The court decided that it makes no difference that the possessor is not aware of the thing’s existence. When something is found on the land, the presumption is that the possession of that thing is the owner of the land.
South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman
P found a package of banknotes inside D's shop, which he showed to D and requested to return to the original owner. Unclaimed. Held: Finder keeps.
Bridges v. Hawkesworth