Hill v. South
1956 Ore. LEXIS 352, 207 Or. 71, 292 P.2d 141 (1956)
Sections
Rule of Law:
Personal property found concealed on private premises is classified as mislaid property (or property of the landowner) rather than lost property or treasure trove, granting the right of possession to the owner of the premises rather than the finder.
Facts:
- James Stevens died in February 1952, seized of private property containing a house, a shack, and a natural water pool.
- Stevens was known to hide money wrapped in waxed paper within his home.
- In May 1952, three boys (the plaintiffs) were playing on Stevens' property and poking sticks into the bottom of the natural water pool.
- The boys discovered a rubber innertube rigged with wire and ropes to the bottom of the pool.
- Inside the tube was a sealed wooden cask containing a glass jar filled with $2,180 in U.S. currency.
- The currency was elaborately packaged in oiled and waxed paper to protect it from water damage.
- The bills were dated as late as 1951, less than a year prior to the discovery.
- The boys removed the money and delivered it to the Sheriff.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs (the three boys) filed a suit in the trial court against the Estate Administrator and the Sheriff to determine ownership of the found currency.
- The Sheriff appeared solely as a stakeholder claiming no interest.
- The trial court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding them the currency.
- The defendant (Estate Administrator) appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Oregon.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is currency discovered carefully concealed and secured within a natural pool on private property classified as lost property or treasure trove, entitling the finders to ownership, or as mislaid property, entitling the landowner's estate to possession?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Perry
No, the currency is not lost property or treasure trove; it is mislaid property (or property of the decedent) and belongs to the landowner's estate. The court reasoned that the classification of found property depends on the intent of the owner as deduced from the circumstances of the find. The money could not be 'treasure trove' because it lacked antiquity, as the bills were printed as recently as 1951. It was not 'abandoned' or 'lost' because the elaborate waterproofing and securing of the bills to the pool bottom demonstrated a clear intent to conceal and preserve the property, not to discard or accidentally drop it. Under the common law, property that is intentionally placed in a private location for safekeeping and then forgotten is 'mislaid.' When property is mislaid on private land, the owner of the locus in quo (the land) has a superior right of possession over the finder to protect the true owner's potential claim.
Analysis:
This case serves as a definitive illustration of the distinctions between the common law categories of found property: lost, mislaid, abandoned, and treasure trove. By ruling that the manner of placement (carefully hidden and secured) negates the concept of 'lost' property, the court reinforces the principle that 'finders keepers' does not apply to items intentionally placed on private land. This decision protects landowners from trespassers or invitees claiming ownership of valuables hidden on the premises, establishing that the locus in quo owner acts as the bailee for the true owner of mislaid goods.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Hill v. South (1956)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"