United States v. Peter
178 F. Supp. 854, 1959 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2595 (1959)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Property is not considered treasure trove or abandoned when the original owner can be identified by a preponderance of the evidence; in such cases, ownership remains with the original owner or their heirs.
Facts:
- Emily Baron, a recluse, purchased a mattress and kept it in her specially-locked bedroom, allowing no one to enter without her present.
- Baron died in 1957 without a will, and her legal heirs were put in possession of her estate.
- A search of Baron's room after her death uncovered other valuables, but the mattress itself was not searched.
- Baron's heirs sold the mattress for $2.50 to Mr. and Mrs. John E. Cleland.
- The Clelands sent the mattress, which they had never personally seen, to the Lemmon Mattress Works for renovation.
- While processing the mattress contents, an employee, John H. Lemmon, discovered $22,200 in gold certificates hidden inside.
Procedural Posture:
- After John H. Lemmon found the gold certificates and made no claim, the United States government initiated an interpleader action in federal district court to determine the rightful owner.
- The heirs of Emily Baron filed a claim for the value of the certificates.
- Mr. and Mrs. John E. Cleland also filed a claim for the value of the certificates, arguing they acquired ownership when they purchased the mattress.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do gold certificates found concealed within a purchased mattress belong to the purchasers of the mattress under the doctrine of treasure trove when circumstantial evidence strongly indicates the identity of the original owner?
Opinions:
Majority - J. SKELLY WRIGHT, District Judge
No, the gold certificates do not belong to the purchasers because the property is not a treasure trove when the original owner can be identified. The court found that under the Louisiana Civil Code, the doctrine of treasure trove applies only to found property 'on which no one can prove his property.' Here, the court concluded that a preponderance of the evidence established that Emily Baron was the original owner of the certificates. The evidence included her reclusive nature, her possessiveness over the mattress, and the circumstances under which the certificates were likely hidden. Because ownership could be proven, the certificates are treated as lost property belonging to the original owner's estate, not as a treasure trove that would pass to the owner of the mattress in which they were found.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the narrow application of the treasure trove doctrine, reinforcing that it is a rule of last resort for property whose ownership is truly unknown. The court prioritized returning property to the original owner's lineage over rewarding the finder or the purchaser of the container in which the property was found. The case demonstrates a court's willingness to use circumstantial evidence to establish original ownership with a 'preponderance of the evidence' standard, thereby preventing property from being classified as treasure trove. This strengthens the legal principle that a sale of a container does not inherently include the sale of its unknown contents.
