Armory v de Lamirie
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
| Armory v de Lamirie | |
| Court | King's Bench |
|---|---|
| Citation | 1 Strange 505, 93 Eng. Rep. 664 |
| Date decided | July 31, 1722 |
Facts
- Armory = plaintiff = chimney sweep in England in the early 1700s = a small child
- In 1722, Armory found a piece of jewelry
- Paul de Lamerie (1688 - 1751) = a renowned silversmith
- Armory took the jewel to de Lamerie
- de Lamerie offered to buy the jewel for a small sum of money
- Armory refused to sell the jewel
- Paul de Lamerie kept the jewel anyway
Procedural History
- Armory filed a lawsuit of trover
- de Lamerie answered that Armory wasn't the jewel's true owner
- Armory won in the trial court
- The court granted Armory damages because of de Lamerie's continued refusal to return the jewel
Issues
Does a finder of lost property have a sufficient ownership interest to sue for trover?
Arguments
- Armory argued that the jewel was his.
- Armory argued that de Lamerie had wrongfully taken the jewel.
- ----
- de Lamerie argued that Armory had no right to the jewel because he had merely found it.
Holding
Lord Chief Justice Pratt: A person who finds property acquires an ownership interest superior to anyone except the rightful owner.
The finder may bring a claim for trover against anyone interfering with ownership.Judgment
Affirmed
Rule
Finders, keepers
Resources
