Barker v. Bates

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
30 Mass. 255 (1832)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

A landowner has a superior right of possession to personal property found on their land against a trespasser, and in Massachusetts, a riparian owner's title extends to the low-water mark.

Facts:

The Plaintiff owned a farm in Scituate bounded by the sea.
The Plaintiff had previously conveyed a portion of his upland to the United States for a lighthouse but retained the remaining land and beach.
A large stick of timber was driven ashore by the sea and lodged on the beach between the high and low water marks.
The timber appeared to be wreckage from a vessel in distress and was never claimed by its original owner.
The timber came to rest on soil strictly within the boundaries of the land claimed by the Plaintiff.
The Defendants entered onto the beach area without permission and marked or removed the timber.

Procedural Posture:

The Plaintiff sued the Defendants in the trial court to recover the value of the timber.
The parties submitted the case on an agreed statement of facts regarding the ownership and the taking.
The case was elevated to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts for a determination on the question of title and possession.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a coastal landowner have a superior right of possession to timber washed ashore on their property between the high and low water marks compared to a stranger who enters the land to take it?

Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw

Yes. The Court held that the landowner has the preferable right of possession to property found on their soil against a stranger who commits trespass to take it. The Court reasoned that, while English common law typically reserves the foreshore (between high and low tide) for the Crown, long-standing usage in Massachusetts and the Plymouth Colony established that riparian owners hold title down to the low-water mark. The Court determined that the Plaintiff had not conveyed this specific area of flats to the United States when selling the lighthouse plot. Therefore, because the timber lodged on the Plaintiff's freehold soil, the Defendants had no legal right to enter that land. Since the Defendants were trespassers, they could not acquire a valid claim to the timber against the owner of the soil upon which it lay.

Analysis:

This case is a foundational decision in American property law regarding the rights of 'finders' versus landowners (locus in quo). It establishes a critical limitation to the 'finders keepers' doctrine: a finder cannot acquire possessory rights if their discovery relies on a trespass. The decision is also historically significant for solidifying the 'Colonial Ordinance' rule in Massachusetts, confirming that private property rights extend to the low-water mark, which deviates from the traditional English Common Law rule where the sovereign owns the foreshore. This principle protects landowners from intrusion by strangers seeking to claim washed-up property.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Barker v. Bates (1832)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"