We've updated our Privacy Statement.

Before you continue, please read our new Privacy Statement and familiarize yourself with the terms.

SELECTED TOPICS

Brief It Abandoned and Lost Property

28 Gratt. 601 Finding Lost Goods
Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. Ordinary Law of Finders of Lost or
Abandoned Property
Tancil v. Seaton Deposits and Escrows
Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. April 26, 1877 28 Gratt. TANCIL
601 69 Va. 601 1877 WL 6311 26 Am.Rep. 380  (Approx. 5 pages)
Conditional Deposits or Escrows
v. Escrow Agent Breach of Contract
SEATON.
Secondary Sources

Apr. 26, 1877. s 17.06. SALE AND TRANSFER OF

ASSETS; CLOSING.
**1 *601 1. The finder of a bank note, as against a bailee without reward, to whom he 33 E. Min. L. Found. s 17.06
delivers it to be kept for such finder, has such a possessory interest in the note as entitles ...After the aside into the important
him to recover the same of the bailee, on his refusal to redeliver it to the finder on request, considerations in choosing a deal structure,
we now delve back into examining a typical
and in the absence of any claim of the rightful owner made known by him to such bailee. acquisition agreement's structure. The “Sale
and Transfer of Assets; Closing” ...
2. Such bailee is not bound to use as great care and diligence in the keeping of the note as
Cause of Action by Finder to Establish
he would be if he were a bailee with compensation; and if the note was stolen from his Right to Lost Personal Property
possession, he will not be liable for it, unless the loss was the result of gross negligence on
20 Causes of Action 761 (Originally published
his part. in 1989)
...This article discusses an action by a finder
3. In such a case to entitle the plaintiff to recover, he must show that the note was a genuine to establish ownership or possessory rights to
note, and of the value claimed. lost personal property. It is assumed for
organizational purposes that the action is
brought by a finder agai...
This was an action of assumpsit in the corporation court of Alexandria, brought by Isaac
Tancil against George L. Seaton, to recover the amount of a National Bank note for $1,000, s 17.11. INDEMNIFICATION.
deposited by the wife of the plaintiff with the defendant. The facts are stated by Judge Burks 33 E. Min. L. Found. s 17.11
in his opinion. ...This section of the acquisition agreement
sets forth the remedy for breaches of the
acquisition agreement by both target (and its
In the progress of the trial, the plaintiff asked for two instructions, which were refused; and
shareholders) and purchaser, and also often
the defendant asked for three, which were given; and the plaintiffs excepted. It is sets forth specific known l...
unnecessary to state the instructions asked for by the plaintiff; those of the defendant are as
See More Secondary Sources
follows:
Briefs
First. If the jury believe from the evidence, that the note of one thousand dollars was a
Joint Appendix
National Bank *602 note, and that Tancil had no other right to it than such as he might have
2017 WL 3053644
acquired by finding it, and that he delivered it to the defendant for safe keeping,
MERIT MANAGEMENT GROUP, LP,
communicating to the defendant the fact that he had so acquired it by finding, that then they Petitioner, v. FTI CONSULTING, INC., as
Trustee of the Centaur, LLC Litigation Trust,
must find for the defendant.
Respondent.
Supreme Court of the United States
Second. If the jury believe from the evidence, that the deposit was made for the July 13, 2017
accommodation of the plaintiff, and without compensation to the defendant, and that the ...FN* Counsel of Record Plaintiff FTI
Consulting, Inc., in its capacity as Trustee of
note was stolen from his possession along with money of his own, without gross negligence the Centaur, LLC Litigation Trust, brings this
on the part of the defendant, they must find for the defendant. action against Defendant Merit Management
Group, LP (“Defendant” or “M...
Third. In order to find for the plaintiff, it is necessary, not only for the jury not to find the facts
Joint Appendix
as stated in the foregoing instructions, but must find the further fact that the said note was a
2014 WL 6984512
genuine note of the value of $1,000. Tony Henderson, Petitioner, v. United States
of America, Respondent.
There was a verdict and judgment for the defendant; and Tancil thereupon applied to this Supreme Court of the United States
Dec. 08, 2014
court for a supersedeas: which was allowed.
...June 7, 2006 3:09 p.m. COURT SECURITY
OFFICER: All rise. This Honorable Court is
now in session. Please be seated. THE
West Headnotes (6) COURT: We're here in case No. 3:06-m-
1145-MCR, United States of America versus
Change View To...

WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION,

1 Abandoned and Lost Property Title and Rights of Finder as to Third Allen D. BROWN, Dennis H. DAUGS,
Greg HAYES, and L. Dian MAXWELL,
Persons
Petitioners, v. LEGAL FOUNDATION
OF WASHINGTON; Katrin E. FRANK, in
her official capacity as President of the
Legal Foundation of Washington; and
 The rule that a finder of lost chattels has a title to them against all persons except Gerry L. ALEXANDER, Bobbe J.
BRIDGE, Thomas CHAMBERS, Faith
the owner is not strictly limited to chattels, but extends to money, and to bank IRELAND, Charles W. JOHNSON,
notes, for they are regarded as money. Barbara A. MADSEN, Susan OWENS,
and Charles Z. SMITH, in their official
capacities as Justices of the Supreme
1 Case that cites this headnote Court of Washington, Respondents.

2002 WL 32102930
2 Abandoned and Lost Property Title and Rights of Finder as to Third WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION, Allen
D. BROWN, Dennis H. DAUGS, Greg
Persons HAYES, and L. Dian MAXWELL, Petitioners,
Where the finder of a bank bill deposited it with a bailee, without reward, for safe- v. LEGAL FOUNDATION OF
WASHINGTON; Katrin E. FRANK, in her
keeping, and it was subsequently stolen from his possession without his official capacity as President of the Legal
negligence, he is not liable to his bailor for the value thereof. Foundation of Washington; and Gerry L.
ALEXANDER, Bobbe J. BRIDGE, Thomas
CHAMBERS, Faith IRELAND, Charles W.
2 Cases that cite this headnote JOHNSON, Barbara A. MADSEN, Susan
OWENS, and Charles Z. SMITH, in their
official capacities as Justices of the Supreme
3 Abandoned and Lost Property Title and Rights of Finder as to Third Court of Washington, Respondents.
Persons Supreme Court of the United States
Aug. 22, 2002
Where the finder of a bank note delivered it to a bailee, without reward, to keep
...1. This is an action by a public interest law
for him, he has a sufficient possessory interest to entitle him to recover it from the firm and four citizens of the State of
Washington to enjoin state officials from
bailee on his refusal to deliver on demand, in the absence of any claim by the
continuing to require Limited Practice Officers
rightful owner. (LPOs) to deposit trust fu...

2 Cases that cite this headnote See More Briefs

Trial Court Documents

4 Deposits and Escrows Depositaries
In re Boston Generating, LLC
Since, as a general rule, the bailee cannot dispute his bailor's title, a depositary of
2010 WL 6982767
a lost bank note, as between himself and the finder, who has deposited it, cannot In re: BOSTON GENERATING, LLC, et al.,
withhold the deposit where the owner is unknown, and there is no assertion of Debtors.
United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New
claim on his part against the depositary. York.
Aug. 18, 2010
1 Case that cites this headnote ...FN1. The Debtors in these chapter 11
cases, along with the last four digits of each
Debtor's federal tax identification number,
5 Deposits and Escrows Depositaries include: Boston Generating, LLC (0631);
A gratuitous bailee of a bank note can be held liable therefor in an action by the EBG Holdings LLC (3635); Fore Riv...

bailor only upon proof by the latter of the genuiness and value of the note. In re Dallas Stars, L.p

1 Case that cites this headnote 2012 WL 894749

In re DALLAS STARS, L.P., et al. Debtors.
United States Bankruptcy Court, D.
Delaware.
6 Deposits and Escrows Depositaries Mar. 12, 2012
A depositary without reward is only liable for gross neglect. ...FN1. The Debtors in these Chapter 11
Cases, along with the last four digits of each
debtor's federal tax identification number, are:
Dallas Stars, L.P. (9450); Dallas Arena LLC
Attorneys and Law Firms (9999); Dallas Stars U.S...

In re Intern. Garden Products, Inc.

F. L. Smith, Jr., for the appellant.
2010 WL 6982215
In re: INTERNATIONAL GARDEN
Claughton, for the appellee.
PRODUCTS, INC., et al, Debtors.
United States Bankruptcy Court, D.
Opinion Delaware.
Nov. 10, 2010

BURKS, J., delivered the opinion of the court. ...FN1. The Debtors are the following entities
(followed by the last four digits of their tax
identification numbers): International Garden
**2 On the 10th day of May 1869, the plaintiff's wife handed to the defendant what was Products, Inc. (5711), Weeks Wholesale
claimed to be a thousand dollar National Bank note, she representing that her little son had Rose Grower (9716), Calif...

found it, and offering to pay the defendant one hundred or one hundred and fifty dollars if he See More Trial Court Documents
would find out whether the note was good. *603 The defendant declining to make any
charge, took the note and put it into his iron safe in his store-house for safe-keeping. Within
a few days afterwards, according to the statement of the defendant, his store-house was
broken into, the safe forced open, and the note, together with several hundred dollars of the
plaintiff's own money in the safe was stolen, and never recovered. Suit was brought by the
plaintiff in the corporation court of the city of Alexandria to recover the amount of the note
from the defendant, and on the trial verdict and judgment were rendered for the defendant,
to which judgment a writ of supersedeas was awarded the plaintiff by one of the judges of
this court.

At the trial both plaintiff and defendant prayed instructions to the jury. Those asked by the
defendant were given, and those asked by the plaintiff were refused, and the plaintiff
excepted. The plaintiff also moved the court to set aside the verdict of the jury and grant him
a new trial, on the ground that the instructions given were erroneous. The motion was
overruled, and the plaintiff again excepted.

It appears from the bills of exceptions that the plaintiff's recovery was resisted mainly on two
grounds: First, that the title of the plaintiff, acquired by the finding, which was communicated
to the defendant at the time the note was delivered to him, was not sufficient to support the
action; second, that the note was stolen from the possession of the defendant without
negligence on his part.

If the owner of a personal chattel voluntarily and wholly abandons it, intending not to reclaim
it, the first occupant acquires an absolute right to it. If, however, he merely loses it
accidentally, he does not part with his title, and the finder becomes a quasi depositary,
invested with such possessory interest as will *604 entitle him to hold it against all the world
except the rightful owner. This rule of law has never been seriously questioned since the
leading case of Armory v. Delamirie, reported in 1 Strange 504 (see 1 Smith's Lead. Cases,
part 1, side p. 471, and notes).

It is contended, however, that the rule is limited to the finding of a personal chattel, and has
no application to choses in action; and in support of this proposition we are referred to the
case of McLauglin v. Waite, 9 Cow. R. 670, affirmed (with much dissension) in 5 Wend. R.
404.

The reasoning of the distinguished chancellor (Walworth) in the case last named is
somewhat subtle and not very satisfactory: but if his conclusion is sound, that negotiable
notes, bankers' checks and lottery tickets, payable to the holder, are not within the operation
of the rule, still it by no means follows that current bank notes, convertible at par into money,
are not subject to the rule. The finder of money, we apprehend, would acquire by the finding
the same title to it that the chimney sweeper's boy in the leading case acquired to the jewel
which he found, and which he was permitted to recover in an action against a wrongdoer.

**3 Bank notes are not money in a strict sense. They are not a lawful tender in discharge of
debts and obligations solvable in money; but for most purposes in the transaction of
business, and by common consent, they are considered and treated as money. “They are
not esteemed,” says Lord Mansfield, “as goods, securities, or documents of debt; but are
looked on as money, as cash, in the ordinary course and transaction of business, by the
general consent of mankind; which gives them the credit and currency of money to all intents
and purposes.” They are as much money as guineas *605 themselves are, or as any other
current coin that is used as money or cash. Miller v. Race, 1 Bur. R. 452, 457.

Such being their character, we can see no good reason why the finder of a bank note of a
solvent institution does not acquire by the finding the same title as the finder of a personal
chattel, and why he is not entitled to the same remedies against third parties.

That his title and remedies are the same, notwithstanding what is said by the Chancellor in
McLaughlin v. Waite, supra, would seem deducible from the case of Bridges v. 
Hawkesworth, 7 Eng. L. & Eq. R. 424. The plaintiff in that case having picked up from the
floor of the shop of the defendant a parcel containing banknotes, handed them over to the
defendant to keep till the owner should claim them. They were advertised by the defendant,
but no one appearing to claim them, and three years having elapsed, the plaintiff requested
the defendant to return them, tendering the costs of the advertisements, and offering an
indemnity. The defendant having refused to return them, it was decided that the plaintiff was
entitled to the notes as against the defendant. The recent case (1874) New York & Harlem 
R. Road Co. v. Haws & al. 56 N. Y. R. 175, though not directly to the point, is suggestive.

Now, if the reasoning of Chancellor Walworth in the case cited from 5 Wend., supra, justly
applies to bank notes, then the plaintiff was not entitled to recover in the case of Bridges v. 
Hawkesworth, supra. It is true, that in the last-named case indemnity was offered to the
defendant before action brought; but it would seem that was necessary in that case because
the notes were deposited by the finder with the defendant “to keep until the owner appeared 
to claim them.” It is so expressly stated; and the defendant having, by *606 the terms of the
bailment and the advertisements, come under obligation to the owner, it was but just and
reasonable that before he should be required to return the notes to the finder he should be
indemnified against the liability he had incurred to the owner, should he afterwards appear
and establish his right. There would seem to have been no necessity for the indemnity but
for the undertaking of the bailee by his contract of bailment and by his advertisements, to
account to the owner for the notes if he should appear.
 **4 As a general rule, the bailee is not allowed to dispute the title of his bailor, and we see no
good reason why the depositary of a lost bank note, as between himself and the finder,
should be an exception to this rule, where the owner is unknown and there is no assertion of
claim on his part against the depositary. To permit the latter, under such circumstances,
against his contract of bailment, to withhold the note from the finder, and if the owner never
appears, to appropriate it to his own use, would be to protect him in his fraud and
dishonesty--a thing not to be tolerated, much less sanctioned, in any court of justice.

The defendant being a mere depositary of the note, a bailee without reward, holding the note
only for the benefit and accommodation of the plaintiff, he was not bound to use as great
care and diligence in the custody of the note as if he had been a bailee with compensation,
and therefore if the note was stolen from his possession he was not accountable for it unless
the loss was the result of gross negligence on his part.

The first instruction given to the jury on the motion of the defendant, and the two instructions
prayed by the plaintiff, and refused by the court are in conflict with our views of the law
hereinbefore expressed. *607 The second and third instructions given seem free from error.

The court is therefore of opinion, that while the corporation court of the city of Alexandria did
not err in giving the second and third instructions as prayed by the defendant, nor in
rejecting the instructions prayed by the plaintiff, yet the said court committed an essential
error in giving the first instruction asked for by the defendant: and for this error the judgment
of the corporation court must be reversed and annulled, the verdict of the jury set aside and
a new trial ordered.

The judgment was as follows:

This day came again the parties by their counsel, and the court having maturely considered
the transcript of the record of the judgment aforesaid and the arguments of counsel, is of
opinion, for reasons stated in writing and filed with the record, that the finder of a bank note,
as against a bailee without reward, to whom he delivers it, to be kept for such finder, has
such possessory interest in the note as entitles him to recover the same of said bailee on his
refusal to redeliver it to the finder on request and in the absence of any claim of the rightful
owner made known by him to such bailee; and such bailee is not bound to use as great care
and diligence in the keeping of said note as he would be if he were a bailee with
compensation, and if the note were stolen from his possession he would not be liable for it
unless the loss was the result of gross negligence on his part; and the court is further of
opinion, that while the said corporation court did not err in giving the second and third
instructions to the jury prayed by the defendant in *608 error, nor in refusing to give the two
instructions prayed by the plaintiff in error, yet the said court did err in giving the first
instruction asked for by the defendant in error, and further erred in overruling the motion of
the plaintiff for a new trial; it is therefore considered by the court that the said judgment be
reversed and annulled, and that the defendant in error pay to the plaintiff in error his costs by
him expended in the prosecution of his said writ of supersedeas here; and this court
proceeding to render such judgment as the said corporation court ought to have rendered, it
is further considered that the verdict of the jury be set aside, and a new trial of the issues in
the cause be granted, and upon such trial the said corporation court, in the giving or refusing
of instructions to the jury, shall be governed by the opinion and principles herein expressed;
and this cause is remanded to the said corporation court for further proceedings to be had
therein in conformity with the directions herein contained: which is ordered to be certified to
the said corporation court of the city of Alexandria.

**5 JUDGMENT REVERSED.

All Citations

28 Gratt. 601, 69 Va. 601, 1877 WL 6311, 26 Am.Rep. 380

End of © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Document

Westlaw. © 2018 Thomson Reuters Privacy Statement Accessibility Supplier Terms Contact Us 1-800-REF-ATTY (1-800-733-2889) Improve Westlaw