[1945] K.B. 509
Duncan Hannah, a lance-corporal in the Royal Artillery, was stationed at Gwernhaylod House in Overton-on-Dee, Shropshire, in August 1940.1 The house had been conveyed to the defendant Hugh Edmund Ethelston Peel on 13 December 1938, but Peel never occupied it, as it was requisitioned under the Defence Regulations on 5 October 1939, released after some months, and requisitioned again on 16 July 1940, for which Peel received £250 a year in compensation.2
On 21 August 1940, while occupying an upstairs room in the house being used as a sick bay, Hannah was adjusting the blackout curtains when his hand touched something loose that he thought to be a piece of dirt or plaster.3 He picked it up and dropped it outside the window on to the window-ledge.4 The next morning in daylight he found that the object was a brooch covered with spider's web and dirt.5
At the end of October 1940, after cleaning the brooch and showing it to his wife, Hannah consulted Major Lawrie, his commanding officer, and on his advice the brooch was handed by Major Lawrie on behalf of the plaintiff to Sergeant Blodwell Williams of the Flintshire police at the Overton police station, for which a receipt was given.6
In a letter of 22 November 1941, the agents for the defendant asserted their claim, stating that on the assumption that the brooch was in the wall crevice when Major Peel purchased the house, the brooch is Major Peel's property.7 The defendant offered the brooch to Spink & Son Ltd, who offered £60 and later raised that to £66, and they themselves sold the brooch for £88.8
The plaintiff claimed the return of the brooch or its value on the ground that he was the finder, while the defendant denied the plaintiff's right and pleaded that as freeholder his title was superior.9
Whether the finder of a lost brooch has a superior claim to it against the freeholder of the premises where it was found who was never in occupation of those premises?10
Under the common law as articulated in Armory v Delamirie, the finder of a lost chattel acquires a property interest sufficient to maintain an action against all persons except the true owner.11 This principle was applied in Bridges v Hawkesworth to award notes found on the floor of a shop to the finder rather than the shopkeeper, who lacked prior possession or control.12 In contrast, cases such as South Staffordshire Water Co v Sharman and Elwes v Brigg Gas Co recognize that a landowner in possession of the premises may claim items embedded in or under the land, or over which the owner exercises manifest control.13 The distinction turns on whether the freeholder was in occupation and exercised de facto control over the locus in quo.14
Yes. The rule applies directly to the facts involving Duncan Hannah and Hugh Edmund Ethelston Peel.15 Hannah discovered the brooch by chance while adjusting blackout curtains in an upstairs room of the requisitioned house.16 He properly delivered it to the police through his commanding officer.17
Because the brooch lay unattached on the window ledge rather than embedded in the soil, and because Peel lacked any intention or ability to control the premises at the time of the finding, the exception for landowners in possession does not apply.18 The circumstances align with Bridges v Hawkesworth rather than the embedded-property cases, confirming Hannah's superior title as finder.19
The finder therefore holds the superior claim to the brooch or its value against the non-occupying freeholder.20