Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-05-29

found the book after the offer was
made, and that the finding was with
a view to obtaining the reward.
The courts are divided as to whether
knowledge of the offer, at the time
of the performance of the act, is
essential to the right to the reward,
or to the enforcement of it. So far
as relates to the acts in this case
it is immaterial which line of au-
thorities we would be inclined to
follow, as the finding of the book
was not the purpose of the offer
Defendant was aware that the book
had been found before the offer was
made, and the offer was for it's re-
turn to the county judges office.
This condition of the offer plaintiff
complied with. She took the book
and its contents to the county
judges office and offered to sur
render it for the payment of the re-
ward. This was held sufficient in
Pierson v. Morch, S2 N. Y. 503, a
case in many respects identical with
the one before us. 1t was contended
that there was no consideration for
the promise, but the court held that
the return of the property COM
pleted the contract and the defend
ant was liable. 1t was also con-
tended in that case that plaintiff
was not the finder in good faith, as
she made no inquiries before leaving
the car where she found the goods,
either of the conductor or the pas
sengers. The court held that the
question was properly submitted to
the jury and their decision was in
her favor, the court saying: IF the
plaintiff really found and took pos
session of the goods, believing them
to be lost, and with a purpose to
preserve and return them if possible
to the owner, she was in condition
to claim the reward, upon complying
with the terms" In that case the
goods were found before the reward
was Offered. To the same effect is
Everman V. Hyman, 8 Ind. App 459,
in which case a reward was offered
for the return of stolen horse, and
1t was held that the finder had
right to retain the horse until the
reward was paid. See also, Cum
mings V. Gam, So Pa. st. 4S4;
Grady V. Crook, 2 Abbott N. G. SO;
Wood v. Pierson, As Mich. S13.
Upon plaintiffs offer to return
the book defendants agent would
not pay, and, in fact, had no author
ity to pay the reward. 1t appears
from the evidence and conduct of
defendant that he had no intention
of SO doing. There Is nothing in the
evidence tending to show an inten-
ton on her part to keep or convert
the property to her own use.
Although she knew who was the
owner of the property, she had not
ascertained his address until after
the offer of the reward of July 81;
and thereafter she retained The
goods for the reward. When the
500 reward was offered she had a
lien thereon for the payment of 1t:
10 A. & E. E. $50; "a A. & E, E..
961: Wentworth v. Day, 3 Metcalf
GA Mass.) 352; Everman V. Hyman,
8 Ind. App. 459.
1t is urged by defendant that
plaintiff showed bad faith in not i'm
mediately giving notice to the coun-
ty clerk that she had found the
book, as provided in CAGE 1880 L.
O. L. This and the following section
relate to lost property, the owner Of
which is unknown to the finder, and
makes provision for the disposition
of the property If the owner does
not appear to claim 1t. The present
case does not come within the sta
tute for the reason that the name of
the owner of the property was dis
closed upon 1t and he was easily
identified. It only remained for
plaintiff to find him and return the
property.
It is further objected that the
findings do not support the judg-
ment. No particular omission in
them is pointed out and we find no
defect in that regard.
The judgment is affirmed.