Notice on p. 126 Judge Paterson of the Queen's Bench says that if a finder finds money outside the shop on a public street his right of possession "would clearly have accrued." Thus, he reasons, why should there be a different result if the finder finds the money "inside the defendant's shop."
Are these two cases really all that similar? How are they alike? How are they different? Are the differences material?
Question for you future litigators:
If you were counsel for the shopkeeper in Bridges, and in oral argument the court asked you whether you agreed with the Plaintiff that Armory v. Delamirie governs the instant case and requires the court to grant possession to the finder, what would your response be?
Why should the court distinguish Armory and rule for your client the shopkeeper? What is your argument on behalf of your client?
