Year: 1879

In Missouri the law is, that it


is the duty of the finder of an ar


tlclc OF value, to make in good


faith reasonable exertions to dis
cover the owner. If he neglects
so to do and iappropriates the ar


ticle to his own use or benefit, the


law regards him as guilty OF lar
ceny. The legal relations OF the
finders to the things found are
many and various, and a correct
knowledge Of them is often i'm
portant. In a recent case, the
Supreme Court Of Indiana has
rendered an interesting decision
upon this subject. A. young girl
who was working in a paper mill
near Delphi found two $50 bills
among some old rags in the mill.
In order TO learn whether they
were genuine she showed them to
her employers, who retained
them, claiming that by the pur
chase of the rags and the envel
ope in which they were found
they had acquired property in
the bills. The true owner was
never discovered. The court de
clded that the money belonged
to the girl, and pronounced the
| general principle that the finder
of lost property has title to it Su
perior to that of any other per
son except the loser or real own
er, and that the place of finding
makes no difference in this rule,


The earliest leading case o
this nature was in England,
where a chimney sweeper's boy,
having found a jewel and left it
with goldsmith to ascertain it
value, was held entitled to reco
er it. A few years ago, in Rhod
Island, a man who had purchas
ed an old safe left it with a black
smith to sell, with the privilege
of using 1t until sold. The black
smith found $165 III tho lining.
1t was never known who had
been the owner of the money.
The owner Of the safe claimed
that the money should be his by
virtue of prior possession. The
court held that he had never had
possession Of the money except
unwittingly by possessing the
safe which contained it, and that
his purchase was Of the safe, not
Of the safe and contents. The
blacksmith kept the money. A
man picked up a parcel of bank
notes in a barber shop. He
gave them to the barber to keep
for the owner if he could be
found. The latter was not found
aud the court decided that the
notes, before they were picked
up, never were in the barber's
custody nor within the protection
of his house, and that he was not
entitled to them. .:+5a..4


In a Pennsylvania case it was
adjudged that a conductor who
bad found money that had been
lost in railroad Car was entitled
to it against the railroad com
pany. It person intentionally
places a thing in a certain place
and then torgets it, and it is dis
covered and taken possession of
by another, it would not he lost
i'll contemplation Of law, and
therefore, there could be no legal
finding of it by a stranger, and
his appropriation of it would be a
felony. The old civil law was
that he who had found a thing
that was lost was obliged to pre-
serve it III order to restore it to
it's owner, and Whenever he did
restore it could not detain any
part of it, nor demand anything
for having found it. The same
principle is recognized to day. 1t
has been repeatedly decided III
England that the finder of lost
property has no lien for expenses
gratuitously incurred in taking
care of it. But the offer of a ro
ward is equivalent to a contract,
and will confer upon the finder a
lien on the article to the extent
OF the reward. With this excep
ton, in the United States the
general principle is that, since d
lien for the service of finding may
be made a means of oppression
and eyaction, the law will never
inie, its existence in furtherance
| Of public convenience or policy.