Lexplug logoLexplug

Foulke v. New York Consolidated Railroad

New York Court of Appeals
9 A.L.R. 1384, 127 N.E. 237, 228 N.Y. 269 (1920)
ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

Property voluntarily placed on a common carrier's vehicle by a passenger and subsequently forgotten is considered 'mislaid' rather than 'lost,' making the carrier the gratuitous bailee with a right of possession superior to that of a finder.


Facts:

  • Plaintiff was a passenger on the Defendant's subway railway.
  • Plaintiff observed another passenger leave a package on a seat opposite him and disembark the train.
  • Plaintiff picked up the unmarked package and carried it off the train at the next station.
  • A railway guard and the general trainmaster demanded the Plaintiff surrender the package to the railroad company.
  • Plaintiff refused to surrender the package, stating his intention to keep it and advertise for the owner himself.
  • The trainmaster threatened arrest, but Plaintiff persisted in his refusal.
  • The trainmaster had Plaintiff arrested and brought to the police station.
  • The package was opened and found to contain a loaf of bread worth approximately five cents.

Procedural Posture:

  • Plaintiff sued Defendant for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution in the trial court.
  • The trial court dismissed the complaint.
  • Plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Appellate Division.
  • The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the trial court's judgment.
  • Plaintiff appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

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 a common carrier have a superior right of possession over a package voluntarily placed and forgotten by a passenger on a train seat, such that a finder's refusal to surrender the package to the carrier constitutes grounds for a larceny accusation?


Opinions:

Majority - Judge Collin

Yes, the railroad carrier holds a superior right of possession over mislaid property found within its cars. The court reasoned that the package was not 'lost' (dropped casually or involuntarily) nor 'abandoned' (intentionally thrown away), but rather 'mislaid' or 'left' property, as the owner had voluntarily placed it on the seat and forgotten it. Because the property was left on the Defendant's train, the Defendant assumed a duty to the true owner to protect the property. This duty created a relationship of 'gratuitous bailment,' giving the Defendant legal custody and possession of the package. Consequently, the Plaintiff had no right to remove the package against the railroad's will. The Plaintiff's refusal to surrender the package to the rightful bailee (the railroad), combined with an intent to deprive the superior possessor of it, constituted sufficient legal grounds for an accusation of petit larceny, thereby defeating the claims for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.



Analysis:

This decision is a seminal case in property law regarding the distinction between 'lost' and 'mislaid' property. It establishes that the location where an item is found—specifically whether it was placed voluntarily (like on a table or seat) versus dropped involuntarily (like on a floor)—determines who has the right of possession against all but the true owner. By categorizing items left on seats as 'mislaid,' the court grants possession to the owner of the premises (locus in quo) rather than the finder. This policy aims to better protect the true owner, who is more likely to return to the place they left the item than to find a random stranger who picked it up.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Foulke v. New York Consolidated Railroad (1920)

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