Favorite v. Miller
407 A.2d 974, 176 Conn. 310, 1978 Conn. LEXIS 789 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner has a superior claim of title to property found embedded in their land over the finder, particularly when the finder was a trespasser on the property at the time of the discovery.
Facts:
- In 1776, patriots toppled a lead statue of King George III in New York City.
- Pieces of the statue were transported towards a foundry in Connecticut to be made into bullets.
- During a stop in Wilton, Connecticut, loyalists stole some pieces of the statue and scattered them in the Davis swamp area.
- In 1972, Louis Miller, believing a fragment of the statue might be on property owned by the plaintiffs, entered their land.
- Miller knew the property was private and did not have permission to be there.
- Using a metal detector, Miller located a 20-pound fragment of the statue embedded ten inches below the soil.
- Miller excavated the fragment, removed it from the plaintiffs' property, and later agreed to sell it to a museum for $5500.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs sued Louis Miller in a Connecticut trial court to recover the statue fragment.
- The case was submitted to the trial court on a stipulation of facts.
- The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs, classifying the fragment as 'mislaid' property.
- The defendant, Louis Miller, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Connecticut.
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 trespasser who discovers a historical artifact embedded in the soil have a superior claim to the artifact over the owner of the land?
Opinions:
Majority - Bogdanski, J.
No. A trespasser who finds an object embedded in the earth does not have a superior claim to it over the landowner. The court declined to apply the traditional finder's law categories of 'lost,' 'mislaid,' or 'abandoned' property, finding it conjectural to determine the intent of individuals who lived two hundred years ago. Instead, the court based its decision on two principles. First, property embedded in the earth is presumed to be in the possession of the landowner, giving the owner superior title against a finder. Second, a finder who is a trespasser should not be allowed to profit from their wrongdoing, and a non-trivial trespass is sufficient to deprive a finder of the normal preference they might have over the landowner. Miller's trespass was intentional and not trivial, and the object was embedded in the plaintiffs' soil, thus the plaintiffs' claim is superior.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant clarification in the law of finders, moving away from the often-unworkable intent-based categories of 'lost,' 'mislaid,' and 'abandoned' for ancient objects. It establishes a clearer, property-rights-focused rule that gives landowners superior title to objects embedded in their soil. The ruling strongly discourages trespassing by denying trespassers the 'fruits' of their finds, thereby protecting landowners from unauthorized entry and excavation. This case serves as a key precedent favoring landowners over finders, especially in cases involving trespassing and embedded property.
Unlock the full brief for Favorite v. Miller