Login

Login

To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library

Add

Search

Login
Register
Register

Hannah v. Peel

Law Dictionary
CASE BRIEFS

Law Dictionary

Featuring Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Ed.
AA
Font size

Property Law Keyed to Cribbet

View this case and other resources at:
Bloomberg Law

Citation. K.B. 509 (King’s Bench 1945).

Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff, who was a soldier staying in the house owned (but not occupied) by Defendant, found a brooch and then gave the brooch to the police who later, after not finding the rightful owner, gave the brooch to Defendant, who then sold the brooch.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Because Defendant was not physically present in the house at any time, Plaintiff’s find was defensible against all parties except the rightful owner.


Facts. Defendant owned a house, but did not occupy the house. Then, in October of 1939, the house was requisitioned by the government to house soldiers. Defendant was compensated with 250 pounds per month. Plaintiff was housed in the residence in 1940. During his stay he found a brooch. He then alerted Defendant of his find, and took the brooch to the police to find the rightful owner, receiving a receipt. Thereafter, in 1942, the rightful owner was still not located, and the police gave the brooch over to Defendant. Defendant sold the brooch for 66 pounds to a jeweler who resold the brooch for 88 pounds. Plaintiff, through counsel, demanded return of the brooch from Defendant, who refused. The Plaintiff sued claiming return of the brooch, or its value, and damages for its detention.

Issue. Does Plaintiff have a claim of right for finding the brooch against Defendant, who owned the house where the brooch was found but did not ever occupy the house?

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following