Hannah v. Peel Facts: The defendant’s manor was requisitioned by the military for use in World War II. A soldier staying there found a brooch. He turned it in to the police. When the owner couldn’t be found, the brooch was turned over to the owner of the manor instead of the solider. The manor owner sold it. The solider sued the manor owner for the value of the brooch, claiming “finders keepers”. The manor owner’s defense is that he has superior title to the brooch because it was found on his property. Issues: Who is the rightful owner of the broach? Rules: The court rules that everything attached to a piece of land is the owners but not necessarily everything that is not owned on the land Notes and Questions Major Peel seems to have a couple of strikes against him: the plaintiff’s conduct was “meritorious” and Peel never lived in the manor. It seems like if Peel actually had lived in the manor, he could claim (even if falsely) that he knew the brooch was there, and thus possessed it just as he would any other personal property stored in the house. Matthew’s advice probably isn’t very useful legally. If you find the treasure, you should take the treasure with you instead of buying the field. If you plan to buy the field, but someone else digs up the treasure first, then you’ll lose out. I’m sure that’s not what Matt meant, though. There are two different ways to read South Staffordshire and distinguish it from Bridges: (1) The finder in South Staffordshire was an employee of the landowners, and therefore the rings that were found become the property of the employer rather than the employee, or (2) the rings were not lying unattached on the land, but rather were “buried” under the mud, and thus were part of the landowner’s real estate interest. I think the court makes a good argument for why the rulings are indeed reconcilable. The court in Bridges said that the money was lost rather than mislaid, that is, it wasn’t left intentionally. The law of bailments therefore said that possession went to the finder instead of the landowner. If we assume that the chimney sweep’s boy was employed by the tavern owner, then under one interpretation of South Staffordshire the jewel belongs to the tavern owner. However, the chimney sweep’s boy could argue that South Staffordshire stands for the proposition that buried stuff belongs to the landowner, but loose stuff doesn’t, and thus the jewel belongs to him. On the other hand, the tavern owner could attempt to distinguish Hannah by saying that he was in possession of the tavern, unlike Peel who never lived in his manor. The tavern owner could argue that Peel would have prevailed in that case if he had possession of the manor, and thus that the tavern owner should win in this case.