Where a man buys a chattel which, un known to himself and the vendor, contains valuable property, he will, as to that, be con sidered merely as a finder. When a person purchased at a public auction a bureau, and appropriated to his own use a purse contain ing money, found in a secret drawer, the ex istence of which at the time of the sale was not known to any one, it was held that there was a delivery of the bureau but not of the purse and money, and it was a simple case of finding and subject to the law in such cases ; 7 M. & W. 623. See Br. Leg. Max. 8th Am. ed. 807.
The finder is entitled to certain rights, and liable to duties which he is obliged to per form. This is a species of deposit, which, as it does not arise ex contra-eta, 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 contractu ; Doctor & Stud. Dial. 2, c. 38; 2 Bulstr. 306, 312 ; 1 Rolle 125. The finder is not bound to take the goods he finds; yet, when he does undertake the custody, he is required to exercise reason able diligence in preserving the property; and he will be responsible as a bailee for gross negligence. Some of old authori ties laid down that "if a man find butter, and by his negligent 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 find goods and then lose them again. Bacon, Abr. Bailment, D ; and in support of this position, Leon. 123, 223 ; Ow. 141; 2 Bulstr. 21, are cited. But these cases, if carefully examined, will not, per haps, be found to decide the point as broad ly as it is stated in Bacon. A finder would be held responsible for gross negligence, or fraud ; Story, Bailm. § 85.
On the other hand, the finder of an article is entitled to recover all expenses which have necessarily occurred in preserving the thing found ; Domat, 1. 2, t. 9, s. 2, n. 2. But un like salvors by water, he can claim nothing beyond this ; 2 H. Bla. 254; Marvin v. Treat, 37 Conn. 96, 9 Am. Rep. 307 ; Trustees of Millcreek Tp. v. Brighton Stock Yards Co., 27 Ohio St. 435 ; Shoul. Bailm. 28.
Where money was found upon a body floating in the water and paid into the ad miralty court by the salvors, they were awarded half of the amount as salvage, and the public administrator of the county in which the court was located was held enti tled to the balance as against the finders, or the United States, claiming under its preroga tive rights of a sovereign ; Gardner v. Nine ty-Nine Gold Coins, 111 Fed. 552. ' The pub lic administrator was considered to represent the true owner in like manner as would an ordinary administrator.
When the owner does not reclaim the goods lost, they belong to the finder; 1 Bla. Cora. 296 ; 2 id. 9 ; 2 Kent 290 ; and should there be several finders, they share in common ; Keron v. Cashman (N. J.) 33 Atl. 1055, 19 N. J. L. J. 54. 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 wulLius naturaliter fit primi occupantis. Money or goods that are lost are the only kind that can be said to be found. It is property that the owner has involuntarily parted with, and not property that he has intentionally con cealed in the earth for safekeeping ; Sovern v. Yoran, 16 Or. 269, 20 Pac. 100, 8 Am. St. Rep. 293.
To the same effect when property is found concealed in other property, such as bureaus, safes, machinery, stoves, etc. It is held in many eases not to be lost in the sense of abandoned, unless It appears to have been casually or accidentally placed there; Dur fee v. Jones, 11 R. I. 588, 23 Am. Rep. 528; Huthmacher v. Harris's Adm'rs, 38 Pa. 491, 80 Am. Dec. 502; Warren v. Ulrich, 130 Pa. 413, 18 Atl. 618. Money found under such conditions is held to constitute treasure trove; Livermore v. White, 74 Me. 456, 43 Am. Rep. 600 ; Sovern v. Yoran, 16 Or. 269, 20 Pac. 100, 8 Am. St. Rep. 293; Kuykendall v. Fish er, 61 W. Va. 87, 56 S. E. 48, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 94, 11 Ann. Cas. 700. Money left on a desk in a bank, provided for the use of the depositors, is not lost so as to entitle the find er to the same, as against the bank ; Loucks v. Gallogly, 1 Misc. (N. Y.) 22, 23 N. Y. Supp. 126. It seems that the title of the owner to property lying at the bottom of the sea is not divested, however long it may remain there, and no other person can acquire such title except by condemnation and sale in ad miralty; Murphy v. Dunham, 38 Fed. 503. One who finds property at sea is only a salvor. When a ship was almost becalmed in high seas a floating chest was found and with but little trouble taken on board. It contained 70 doubloons. It was held that the finders were not entitled to the whole property, though no claims or marks of ownership, but should be compensated by a moiety as for salvage services. The other moiety was di rected to be paid into court ; Hollingsworth v. Seventy Doubloons, etc., Fed. Cas. No. 6,620. And to the same effect, Gardner v. Ninety Nine Gold Coins, 111 Fed. 552, where money was found on a dead body floating in the wa ter. See supra, In a German case a woman, eating an oys ter in a restaurant, found a pearl in it, which it was held belonged to her escort, who paid for the food ; 39 Am. L. Rev. 443.