Scribd
Upload
12 views

Jurisprudence Cases

The document discusses three court cases related to ownership of discovered items: a 1886 case where a prehistoric boat was discovered on leased land and ruled to belong to the landlord; a 1896 case where gold rings were found in a pond on leased land and ruled to belong to the landlord company; and an 1808 case where money was found in a bureau delivered to a carpenter and he was ruled to have not possessed it until discovering it, making him guilty of appropriating the money.

Uploaded by

moazzmawaseem3
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
12 views

Jurisprudence Cases

The document discusses three court cases related to ownership of discovered items: a 1886 case where a prehistoric boat was discovered on leased land and ruled to belong to the landlord; a 1896 case where gold rings were found in a pond on leased land and ruled to belong to the landlord company; and an 1808 case where money was found in a bureau delivered to a carpenter and he was ruled to have not possessed it until discovering it, making him guilty of appropriating the money.

Uploaded by

moazzmawaseem3
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

a) Elves v. Brigg Gas Co. 1886 Chancery Division.

Fact:
In this case the plaintiff was the owner of the land. He gave his land to defendant Company on
lease for the purpose of excavation and erection of gas works thereon. During the course of excavation
one of the man of the defendants Company found a pre-historic boat buried 6 feet below the surface.

Issue:
Issue before the Court was whether the boat belonged to the landlord or lessee.

Held:
J. Chitty observed that the landlord was entitled to the boat against the Company though it was
discovered by the Company. It was observed that it was immaterial that the landlord was not aware of
the existence of the boat. He was in possession of the ground not merely of the surface. Hence
everything that lay beneath the surface down to the center of the earth consequently in possession of
the boat. It did not matter that the plaintiff was not aware of the existence of the boat.

b) South Staffordshire Waterworks Co. V. Sharman, 1896.

Fact:
In the instant case Plaintiff Company appointed defendant servant to clean out a pond upon
their land and in doing so he found certain gold ring at the bottom of it. Dispute arose between plaintiff
Company and the defendant servant as to the possession of the gold ring.

Issue:
To whom the Gold ring belong?

Held:
The plaintiff Company was in first possession of the gold ring and is not the defendant, who
acquired no title to them. It was observed that the possession of land carries with it in general
possession of everything which is attached to or under the land.

Cartwright Vs Green (1808) 7 R.R. 99:

In this case a bureau was delivered to carpenter, and there was money in the secret
drawer of the bureau. Carpenter appropriated the money. It was held by the court
that animus was lacking in the carpenter therefore money was not in his possession
until he found it therefore he was held guilty.

Bridges Vs. Hawkesworth (1851)


Facts. Plaintiff was a traveler 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?
The Court held that a shopkeeper does not obtain ownership rights over a lost item that was not in
their possession or under their care. Instead, the person who discovers a lost item acquires
ownership of it, subject only to claims of the legal owner.

You might also like