Lexplug logoLexplug

Clark v. Maloney

Supreme Court of Delaware
3 Del. 68 (1840) (1840)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A person who finds a lost chattel acquires a special property right in it, enabling them to keep it against all but the true owner. The subsequent loss of the chattel by the first finder does not divest this special property right, which remains superior to that of a subsequent finder.


Facts:

  • The plaintiff found logs adrift in the Delaware Bay.
  • The plaintiff took possession of the logs by securing them with a stake at the mouth of Mispillion Creek.
  • The logs subsequently broke loose from their fastening and were again adrift.
  • The defendants then found the same logs adrift in Mispillion Creek.
  • The defendants took possession of the logs.
  • The original, absolute owner of the logs is not a party to the lawsuit.

Procedural Posture:

  • The plaintiff filed an action for trover (conversion) against the defendants in a court of first instance.
  • The case proceeded to a jury trial.
  • The Chief Justice delivered this charge to the jury to instruct them on the applicable law before their deliberation.

Locked

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 the first finder of a lost chattel, who takes possession but subsequently loses it, have a superior property right over a subsequent finder of the same chattel?


Opinions:

Majority - Bayard, Chief Justice

Yes, the first finder of a lost chattel has a superior property right over a subsequent finder. The court reasoned that possession is prima facie evidence of property. While the finder of a chattel does not acquire absolute ownership, they do acquire a 'special property' right that is enforceable against everyone except the true original owner. The court analogized that just as the original owner's loss did not extinguish their absolute property right, the first finder's subsequent loss of the chattel does not extinguish their special property right. Therefore, the plaintiff, as the first finder who never abandoned his claim, maintained a superior title to the logs compared to the defendants, the subsequent finders.



Analysis:

This case establishes a clear hierarchy of rights among finders of lost property, solidifying the principle of 'first in time, first in right.' It protects the possessory interest of the first finder against all subsequent claimants except for the true owner. This precedent is crucial for property law because it provides stability and predictability, discouraging a free-for-all where found property could be perpetually seized from anyone who is not the original owner. The decision reinforces the idea that possession creates a legally protectable property interest, even if that interest is not absolute.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Clark v. Maloney (1840) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Clark v. Maloney