Found Property?

Question

John Hines is a janitor for the First Mercantile Department Store. While walking to work, John finds an expensive watch lying on the curb. John gives the watch to his son, Bill. Two weeks later, Martin Avery, the true owner of the watch, discovers of that John found the watch and demands it back from Bill. Who is entitled to the watch and why?

Answer 1

As the finder of a lost item (watch) in a public place, John has a possessory interest in the watch superior to all but the watch's true owner.

John's conveyance of the watch to Bill (presumably as a gift, not for safekeeping) conveys to Bill all the rights John had in the watch, but no more. John cannot convey more interest in the watch than he himself possesses. Bill now has possessory interest in the watch against all but the true owner.

As true owner, Martin's claim is superior to everyone else's. John conveyed his lesser interest as finder to Bill, and thus has no claim whatsoever.

Martin is entitled to the watch.

Answer 2

The true owner, Martin Avery, is entitled to the watch.
The rule comes from Armory v. Delamirie. Avery may bring action in replevin to regain the watch. He can sue either John or Bill. If the watch is destroyed in the meantime, either John or bill can be sued for conversion, and will have to pay the value of the watch.

Rule - finder may keep against all but the rightful owner
• Perfected rule - finder wins against all others but the rightful owner or the prior possessor

Answer 3

The watch should belong to the original owner. He lost the watch; he didn't abandon it.

The finder is under a legal and an ethical obligation to try to find the original owner, especially if the item is anywhere near identifiable as belonging to someone. The obligation increases as the value of the item increases.