For Your Data Hannah V. Pare Illustration Brief
June 05, 2022
Edit
Hannah v. Peel
FACTS
-Peel (D) purchased a abode inwards 1938 simply never moved in. In 1940, during World War II, Peel’s abode was requisitioned past times the military. Hannah (P) was stationed inwards the house. Hannah constitute a brooch on a windowsill inwards a room inwards a remote business office of the draw of piece of occupation solid that was beingness used every bit a sickbay.
-Hannah gave the brooch to the police. In 1942 the constabulary gave it to Peel who together with thus sold it for 66 pounds. There was no bear witness that D knew of existence of the brooch earlier P discovered it. Hannah sued to regain possession of the brooch or its value together with Peel inwards plow asserted that he had superior championship because the brooch was constitute on his property.
ISSUE
-Who has the superior championship to lost holding that is constitute on nation owned past times another?
RULES
-Finder of lost holding has superior championship against the possessor of the nation on which it was found.
-While a human being possesses everything attached to or nether his land, he does non necessarily possess a affair lying unattached on the surface. There is no incertitude that the brooch was lost property. Peel had neither prior possession of the brooch nor possession of the premises inwards which it was constitute at whatsoever time.
APPLICATION
-Court considered the government together with adopted the dominion of Bridges v. Hawkesworth. In Bridges, the plaintiff constitute coin inwards Hawkesworth’s store together with left it amongst him inwards illustration the truthful possessor returned. After 3 years Bridges sued for its furnish together with the courtroom ruled inwards his favor, holding that the finder of lost holding has superior championship to all simply the truthful owner.
Discussed Cases
South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sherman
-Two rings were found, possessor of the nation got the rings.
-Found inwards the shape of agency. Here it was constitute at the bottom of a pool, non inwards a world area.
Elwes v. Brigg Gas Co.
-Boat was embedded inwards soil, courtroom constitute that the possessor was entitled, non the lesee.
-Under the lease did the gas companionship accept correct to the boat?
-Occupancy: who has offset possession?
-As compared to Hannah, Peel (the O) never was inwards occupancy of the room. (His ownership was 100% constructive)
FACTS
-Hannah gave the brooch to the police. In 1942 the constabulary gave it to Peel who together with thus sold it for 66 pounds. There was no bear witness that D knew of existence of the brooch earlier P discovered it. Hannah sued to regain possession of the brooch or its value together with Peel inwards plow asserted that he had superior championship because the brooch was constitute on his property.
Baca Juga
ISSUE
-Who has the superior championship to lost holding that is constitute on nation owned past times another?
RULES
-Finder of lost holding has superior championship against the possessor of the nation on which it was found.
APPLICATION
-Court considered the government together with adopted the dominion of Bridges v. Hawkesworth. In Bridges, the plaintiff constitute coin inwards Hawkesworth’s store together with left it amongst him inwards illustration the truthful possessor returned. After 3 years Bridges sued for its furnish together with the courtroom ruled inwards his favor, holding that the finder of lost holding has superior championship to all simply the truthful owner.
Discussed Cases
South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sherman
-Two rings were found, possessor of the nation got the rings.
-Found inwards the shape of agency. Here it was constitute at the bottom of a pool, non inwards a world area.
Elwes v. Brigg Gas Co.
-Boat was embedded inwards soil, courtroom constitute that the possessor was entitled, non the lesee.
-Under the lease did the gas companionship accept correct to the boat?
-Occupancy: who has offset possession?
-As compared to Hannah, Peel (the O) never was inwards occupancy of the room. (His ownership was 100% constructive)
