Plaintiffs are the owners of land covered by the Minster Pool.
Plaintiffs hired Defendant to clean out the pool, and in the course of this employment, Defendant “found in the mud at the bottom of the pool two gold rings.” (p. 127).
Should it matter whether the rings were found in the mud at the bottom of the pool or on the surface on the bank of the pool? Or on the floor of a boat house near the pool?
The rings were deposited with the police to advertise for the True Owner. When no True Owner came forward, the police delivered the rings to Defendant (the finder).
Plaintiff sued to recover possession of the rings. [detinue, like replevin, is “a legal claim to recover wrongfully detained goods or possessions.”]
Trial judge cited Armory and Bridges and held that the Defendant “finder” had “a good title against all the world except the real owner.”
How would you have decided the case if you were the trial judge?
There was broad language in both of those cases in favor of the Finder’s claim.
But now suppose you were the lawyer for the Plaintiff—what would you argue?
