FINDER. One who lawfully comes to the possession of another's personal property, which was then lost.
The finder of lost property at common law had a valid claim to the same against all the world except the true owner ; 1 Stra. 504 ; Lawrence v. Buck, 62 Me. 275 ; Mathews v. Harsell, 1 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) 393 ; Durfee v. Jones, 11 R. I. 588, 23 Am. Rep. 528 ; Tancil v. Seaton, 28 Gratt. (Va.) 601, 26 Am. Rep. _ 380 ; Sovern v. Yoran, 16 Or. 269, 20 Pac. 100, 8 Am. St. Rep. 293. Generally the place in which the property is found creates no ex ception to the general rule ; Hoagland v. Amusement Co., 170 Mo. 335, 70 S. W. 878, 94 Am. St. Rep. 740 ; Weeks v. Hackett, 104 Me. 264, 71 Ati. 858, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1201, 129 Am. St. Rep. 390, 15 Ann. Cas. 1156: money or property found on the premises of another has been held, in the case of a serv ant in a hotel, as against the proprietor, to belong to the finder ; Hamaker v. Blanch ard, 90 Pa. 377, 35 Am. Rep. 664 ; to the same effect ; Danielson v. Roberts, 44 Or. 108, 74 Pac. 913, 65 L. R. A. 526, 102 Am. St. Rep. 627, where an employee found money hidden and abandoned on his employer's premises. So a stranger who finds money in a shop may retain it as against the shop-owner ; 21 L. J. Q. B. 75 ; unless it has been simply laid aside and left by mistake ; McAvoy v. Medi na, 11 Allen (Mass.) 548, 87 Am. Dec. 733 ; Loucks v. Gallogly, 1 Misc. 22, 23 N. Y. Supp. 126 ; or a conductor who finds money on the cars may retain it as against the company ; New York & H. R. Co. v. Haws, 56 N. Y. 175 ; or an employ6 in a mill, who finds bank-notes among old papers bought to be manufactur ed over ; Bowen v. Sullivan, 62 Ind. 281, 30 Am. Rep. 172. Drift-logs found on the banks of a river may be rightfully retained by the finder as against the riparian owner ; Dead erick v. Oulds, 86 Tenn. 14, 5 S. W. 487, 6 Am. St. Rep. 812 ; but an aerolite which buries itself in the ground belongs rather to the owner of the soil on which it falls than to one who observes it and digs it out; God dard v. Winchell, 86 Ia. 71, 52 N. W. 1124, 17 L. R. A. 788, 41 Am. St. Rep. 481. So gold bearing quartz found buried in the earth, where it was placed by some unknown per son, belongs to the owner of the soil as against the finder ; Ferguson v. Ray, 44 Or. 557, 77 Pac. 600, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 477, 102 Am. St. Rep. 648g 1 Ann. Cas. 1. A prehisa toric boat found by a gas company while ex cavating on land leased by it belongs to the lessor ; 33 Ch. D. 566. Chattels lying upon private lands are, prima facie, in the pos session of the owner: of the land ; [1896] 2 Q. B. 44. Money found in furniture be longing to the estate of a deceased person belongs to the administrator as against the finder ; Kuykendall v. Fisher, 61 W. Va. 87,
56 S. E. 48, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 94, 11 Ann. Cas. 700 ; that the finder of a thing in a private place has no title against the own er of the place, see 39 Am. L. Rev. 922 and cases cited.
Where a workman employed by a corpora tion to clear out a pool on its land found two rings in the mud at the bottom of the pool, the corporation was held entitled to re cover the rings in an action of detinue ; [1896] 2 Q. B. 44. In that case Lord Russell, C. J., put the decision on the ground that the possession of land carried with it everything attached to it, or under it, and he expressly distinguished the last English case above cited, which, he said, stood by itself on the special ground that the notes being dropped in the public part of the shop were never in the custody of the shopkeeper ; accordingly he says: "It is somewhat strange that there is no more direct authority on the question ; but the general principle seems to me to be that where a person has possession of house or land, with a manifest intention to exercise control over it and the things which may be upon or in it, then, if something is found on that land, whether by an employe of the owner or by a stranger, the presumption is that the possession of that thing is in the owner of the locus in qlzo." A commentator upon these cases says: "This language applies to land with respect to which the public has no easement, which differentiates the case from findings in shops and other public places. The real distinction, however, is this, that those things belong to the owner of the premises in which they are found, which, either from their nature, or from the circumstances attending the loss, be come practically part and parcel of the free hold, such as the rings, covered by the water and mud, which undoubtedly belonged to the owner of the land, and the aerolite which buried itself in the ground to the depth of three feet ; or, to use the language of some of the cases, those things belong to the owner which may be regarded as accretions to his land, such as the aerolite, the rings, or drift logs; though the latter may be pursued and taken by a former finder, from whom they have escaped." 36 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 588 ; Fer guson v. Ray, 44 Or. 557, 77 Pac. 600, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 477, 102 Am. St. Rep. 648, 1 Ann. Cas. 1. The contrary view is taken by some courts, which hold that the owner of the soil acquires no title to treasure trove by virtue of his ownership ; Weeks v. Hackett, 104 Me. 264, 71 Atl. 858, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1201, 120 Am. St. Rep. 390, 15 Ann. Cas. 1156 (coins found buried in the earth) ; Danielson v. Roberts, 44 Or. 108, 74 Pac. 913, 65 L. R. A. 526, 102 Am. St. Rep. 627 (coins secreted in an old building).