Notable Items:
Trespass invalidates a finder's claim, so long as the trepass is not trivial nor technical.
Plaintiff:
Defendant: Louis Miller
Venue: Supreme Court of Connecticut
Issue(s) Before the Court:
Is the claim of the defendant, as finder, superior to that of the plaintiffs, as owner of the land upon which the fragment was discovered?
Plaintiff's Claim(s):
The fragment was mislaid and therefore remains property of the land owner upon whose land the fragment was found.
Defendant's Claim(s):
After the passage of 200 years, with no living claimants to the fragment and the secret of its location, mental state of those that placed the fragment is legally impossible to determine, cannot be mislaid.
Furthermore, the true owner is the British Government not the plaintiffs.
Holding(s) and Disposition:
Held: No. Defendant committed non-trivial, non-technical trepass and so defeat any claim of the defendant as a finder.
Disposition: Trial court decision affirmed.
Material Facts:
- Miller entered property owned by the plaintiffs for the purpose of finding and taking fragments of a gilded leaden statue of King George III.
- Fragment sold be Miller to the Museum of the City of New York for $5,500.
- March 1973, plaintiffs sued to recover the fragment.
- A full recounting of the facts is available below
Procedural History:
- Trial court found for the plaintiffs.
- Defendant appealed to this court.
Rationale
Majority Opinion
- Trial court determined that the fragment was mislaid and found in favor of the plaintifs.
- This court determines that the mental state of the individuals from 200 years ago cannot be determined and is not a basis for determining rights of ownership.
- Defendant committed trespass.
- Except where the trepass is trivial or merely technical, trespass deprives the finder of his normal preference over the owner of the property.
- Trial court decision correct but upon faulty grounds.
- Adequate proper grounds exist to support trial court decision.
- Affirmed.
- A full description of the rationale is available below
Full Recounting of Facts
- Miller entered property owned by the plaintiffs for the purpose of finding and taking fragments of a gilded leaden statue of King George III.
- Plaintiffs learned of the event from newspaper accounts.
- Fragment sold be Miller to the Museum of the City of New York for $5,500.
- March 1973, plaintiffs sued to recover the fragment.
- Trial court found for the plaintiffs.
- Defendant appealed to this court.
- A list of the material facts is available above
Majority Full Argument
- Typically, the matter is determined by the characterization of the item as "lost" or "abandoned" (finder prevails) vs "mislaid" (land owner prevails).
- Lost property: involuntary parting, no intent on the part of the loser to part with ownership of the property.
- Abandonment: voluntary reliquishment of ownership without reference to any particular person or purpose.
- Mislaid property: intentional placing of the object and forgetting.
- Trial court determined that the fragment was mislaid and found in favor of the plaintifs.
- This court determines that the mental state of the individuals from 200 years ago cannot be determined and is not a basis for determining rights of ownership.
- Defendant claims that the true owner is the Government of Great Britain.
- Defendant committed trespass.
- Except where the trepass is trivial or merely technical, trespass deprives the finder of his normal preference over the owner of the property.
- Defendant entered property in full knowledge, with prior warning.
- Defendant failed to contact property owners after finding the fragment, despite warnings to do so.
- Trespass was neither trivial nor technical.
- Trial court decision correct but upon faulty grounds.
- Adequate proper grounds exist to support trial court decision.
- Affirmed.
- The core of the rationale is available above