DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Kanagaroo Kort
  HTML https://kangarookort.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Property
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 15--------------------------------------------------
       Hannah v. Peel
       By: kangaroo Date: January 26, 2011, 6:10 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Possession can occur in two levels:
       (1)
       (2)
       FACTS:  On December 13, 1938, the freehold of Gwernhaylod House
       was conveyed to the defendant.  Major Hugh Edward Ethelston
       Peel, never occupied the house and it remained unoccupied until
       October 5, 1939, when it was requisitioned for quartering
       soldiers.  After some months it was released from requisition.
       The house remained unoccupied until July 18, 1940 when it was
       again requisitioned, the defendant being compensated by a
       payment at the rate of 250l a year.  In August of 1940, the
       plaintiff, Hannah was stationed at the house and on the 21st of
       August, was adjusting the black-out curtains in the bedroom.
       While doing so, he felt something which he thought was a piece
       of dirt or plaster.  He then dropped the object on the outside
       of the window ledge.  The next morning, the plaintiff saw that
       it was a brooch covered in dirt.  When the plaintiff showed the
       object to his wife, she informed him that it might have quite a
       bit of value.  The plaintiff then informed his commanding
       officer of the find and handed it over to the police, receiving
       a receipt for it.  In August of 1942 the owner of the brooch
       still had not come forward so the police handed it over to the
       defendant who in turn sold it to a third party, who resold it
       the following month for 88l.
       The defendant offered the plaintiff a reward for the brooch,
       but the plaintiff rejected the offer and maintainted his right
       to possession of the brooch against all persons other than the
       owner, who was unknown.  The plaintiff demanded that the brooch
       be returned to him, but it was not returned, and on October 21,
       1943, the plaintiff issued his complaint claiming the return of
       the brooch, or its value, and damages for its detention.  The
       defendant claimed that he was the owner of the House so he
       claimed possession of the brooch because it was found on his
       property.
       PROCEDURAL FACTS:  Judgment for the plaintiff
       ISSUE:  Who has actual claim to the brooch, the plaintiff who
       was its finder and thus has title to it against everyone except
       the original owner, or the defendant on whose property the
       brooch was found?
       RULES:
       -  The finder of a lost article is entitled to it as against
       all persons except the real owner. (p. 101).
       ANALYSIS:
       -  The brooch was lost, but the moment the plaintiff discovered
       it, it became entitled to him, against all others, except for
       the true original owner.
       CONSLUSION:  The plaintiff was the finder of the lost object.
       Therefore, as the true owner is unknown, the plaintiff claims
       the title to it against all others.
       *****************************************************