FINDER. One who lawfully comes to the possession of another's personal property, which was then lost.
2. The finder is entitled to certain rights, and liable to duties which he is obliged to perform. This is a species of deposit, which, as it does not arise ex contractu, may be called a quasi deposit; and it is governed by the same general rules as common deposits. The finder is required to take the same reasonable care of the property found as any voluntary depositary ex contractu. Doctor & Stud. Dial.
2, c. 38 ; 2 Bulstr. 305, 312 ; 1 Rolle, 125.
3. The finder is not bound to take the goods he finds ; yet, when he does undertake the custody, he is required to exercise rea sonable diligence in preserving the property; and he will be responsible for gross negli gence. Some of the old authorities laid down that " if a man find butter, and by his negli gent keeping it putrefy, or if a man find garments, and by his negligent keeping they be moth-eaten, no action lies." So it is if a man finds goods and lose them again. Bacon, Abr. Bailment, D ; and in support of this po sition Leon. 123, 223 ; Ow. 141 ; 2 Bulstr. 21, are cited. But these cases, if carefully examined, will not, perhaps, be found to de cide the point as broadly as it is stated in Bacon. A. finder would doubtless be held responsible for gross negligence.
4. On the other hand, the finder of an ar ticle is entitled to recover all expenses which have necessarily occurred in preserving the thing found: as, if a man were to find an animal, he would be entitled to be reim bursed for its keeping, for advertising in a reasonable manner that he had found it, and to any reward which may have been offered by the owner for the recovery of such lost thing. Domat, 1. 2, t. 9, a. 2, n. 2. See
Story, Banta. 35.
And when:the owner does not reclaim the goods lost, they belong to the finder. 1 Black stone, Comm. 296 ; 2 id. 9 ; 2 Kent, Comm. 290. The acquisition of treasure by the finder is evidently founded on the rule that what belongs to none naturally becomes the property of the first occupant: res nullius naturaliter fit primi occupantis.
5. As to the criminal responsibility of the finder, the result of the authorities is that if a man finds goods that have been actually lost, or are reasonably supposed by him to have been lost, and appropriates them, with intent to take the entire dominion over them, really believing when he takes them that the owner cannot be found, it is not larceny ; but if he takes them with the like intent, though lost or reasonably supposed to be lost, but reasonably believing that the owner can be found, it is larceny. 1 Den. Cr. Cas. 335, 387; 2 id. 353 ; 2 Bennett & H. Lead. Crim. Cas. 18 ; Dearsl. Cr. Cas. 580 ; Bell, Cr. Cas. 27 ; 2 Carr. & K. 841 ; 6 Cox, Cr. Cas. 117 •, 7 Mees. & W. Exch. 623 ; 1 Hill, N. Y. 94 ; 22 Conn. 153. In Regina v. Thurborn, Parke, B., ob serves that it cannot be doubted that if, at this day, the punishment of death was as signed to theft and usually carried into effect, the misappropriation of lost goods would never be held to constitute that offence. See TAKING.