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

Add to Library




Eads v. Brazleton

View this case and other resources at:
Bloomberg Law

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiff discovered a sunken steamboat with a cargo of lead which Plaintiff planned to salvage, but the Defendants came and salvaged the lead while Plaintiff was elsewhere making repairs to his boat.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

In order for a court to sustain a claim of title by occupancy, the finder must establish that there was actual possession of the object so claimed.


The steamboat America sank in the Mississippi River in 1827 with a cargo of lead. In January of 1855, Plaintiff arrived to find the location of the America on the riverbed and did find the location of the wreck which he marked with a temporary buoy and markings of trees which would guide him back to the location. Thereafter, Plaintiff was delayed from recovering the wreck by the necessity to make repairs to his boat. On September 28, 1855, the Defendants, a salvage firm of Eads and Nelson independently found the America and began raising the cargo. Plaintiff, being aggrieved, filed suit in the chancery division of the Circuit Court of Mississippi County claiming that he had established a title by right of occupancy in the America and that the Defendants were interfering with such title. The lower court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff.


Did the lower court properly rule that Plaintiff had established his title in the America by virtue of title by occupancy?


No. The judgment is reversed.
The Court found that Plaintiff’s claim of occupancy rested upon the evidence of discovery and further, that such evidence consisted only of the markings on the trees and the placement of a temporary buoy by Plaintiff. The Court found that the lead cargo was in fact abandoned and thus could be claimed by a person who discovered and evidenced by some custody and control of the cargo.
The Court found that Plaintiff did not have to actually have the lead in his hands, but that he did have to take such possession as the nature of the circumstances allowed. In this case, the Plaintiff left for months while the Defendants, independent of Plaintiff, found and began to salvage the cargo. The Court found that Plaintiff would have had to place his boat over the wreck and make persistent efforts to retrieve the cargo in order to show the necessary possession of the abandoned property. Therefore, the judgment granting Plaintiff damages was not proper and was ordered reversed.


In cases such as this where property is abandoned in a public location any person may claim ownership of the property provided they find and show some evidence of title by occupancy.

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following