Kincaid v. Eaton
98 Mass. 139 (1867)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An article intentionally placed on a surface by its owner and then forgotten is legally 'mislaid' property, not 'lost' property, and the owner of the premises where it is found has a right of custody superior to that of the discoverer.
Facts:
- The owner of a pocket-book voluntarily laid it down on a desk inside a banking house.
- The owner then forgot the pocket-book and left the bank without it.
- The owner of the pocket-book advertised a reward for the return of the item by its 'finder'.
- The plaintiff discovered the pocket-book on the desk inside the bank.
- The plaintiff returned the pocket-book and attempted to claim the reward.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant in a trial court to recover an offered reward.
- A verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff at the trial court level.
- The defendant, the losing party at trial, appealed the verdict to the current court by filing for 'exceptions' to the trial court's judgment.
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 person who discovers an article that was voluntarily placed on a desk in a place of business and forgotten by its owner have the legal status of a 'finder' entitled to a reward offered for a 'lost' article?
Opinions:
Majority - Wells, J.
No. A person who discovers a mislaid article does not have the special property rights of a finder. The court reasoned that there is a critical distinction between lost and mislaid property. A lost article is one that the owner has involuntarily parted with, whereas a mislaid article is one the owner has intentionally placed somewhere and then forgotten. Because the pocket-book was found on a desk provided for customer use, the court inferred it was mislaid. In such cases, the owner of the premises (the bank) becomes the proper custodian of the property on behalf of the true owner, not the individual who discovers it. Since the reward was offered for the 'finding' of a lost article, and the plaintiff did not legally 'find' a lost article, he failed to meet the terms of the offer and is not entitled to the reward.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the important legal distinction between lost and mislaid property, which dictates the rights and responsibilities of the discoverer and the owner of the premises where the property is found. It establishes that a shopkeeper or business owner has a duty as a bailee to hold mislaid property for the true owner, protecting the owner's interests over any claim by the discoverer. This precedent clarifies that a person's rights to found property are not absolute but depend heavily on the circumstances under which it was separated from its owner, impacting how similar 'finder' cases are resolved.
