Finder

One who lawfully comes to the possession of another's personal property, which was then lost,

One who lawfully comes to the possession of another’s personal property, which was then lost. The finder of lost property at common law had a valid claim to the same against all the world except the true owner; 1 Stra. 604; Lawrence v. Buck, 62 Me. 275; Mathews v. Ilarsell, 1 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) 393; Durfee v. Jones, 11 R. I. 588, 23 Am. Rep. 528; Tancil V. Seaton, 28 Gratt. (Va.) 601, 26 Am. Rep. 380; Severn v. Yoran, 16 Or. 269, 20 Pac. 100, 8 Am. St. Rep. 293. Generally the pl^ce in which the property is found creates no exception to the general rule; Hoagland v. Amusement Co., 170 Mo. 335, 70 S. W. 878, 94 Am. St. Rep. 740; Weeks v. Hackett, 104 Me. 264, 71 Atl. 858, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1201, another has been held, in the case of a servant in a hotel, as against the proprietor, to belong to the finder; Haniaker v. Blanchard, 90 Pa. 377, 35 Am. Rep. C64; to the same effect; Danielson v. Roberts, 44 Or. 108, 74 Pac. 913, 66 L. R. A. 526, 102 Am. St. Rep. G27, where an employee found money hidden and abandoned on his employer’s premises. So a stranger who finds money in a shop may retain it as against the shop-owner; 21 L.

One who discovers and takes possession of another’s personal property, which was then lost. A searcher employed to discover goods imported or exported without paying custom. Jacob.

is one who lawfully comes to the possession of another’s personal property, which was then lost. The finder is entitled to certain rights and liable to duties which he is obliged to perform. This is a species of deposit, which as it does not arise er contractu, may be called a quasi deposit, and it is governed by the same general rules as common depusits. The finder is required to take the same reasonable care of the property found, as any voluntary depositary ez contractu. Doct. & St. Dial. 2, c. 88; 2 Bulst. 306, 312; S.C. 12 Rolle’s R. 125; the finder is not bound to take the goods he finds, yet, when he does ed to exercise reasonable diligence in preserving the property, and he will be responsible for gross negligence. Some of the old authorities laid down that “if a man find butter, and by his negligent keeping it putrify; or if a man find garments, and by his negligent keeping they be moth eaten, no action lies. So it is if a man finds goods and lose them again, 1 Bac. Ab. 376; and in support of this position, Leon. 123, 223; Owen 141; and 2 Bulstr. 21, are cited. But these cases, if carefully examined, will not, perhaps, be found to decide the point as broadly as it is stated in Bacon. A finder would doubtless be held responsible for gross negligence. On the other hand, the finder of anarticle is entitled to recover all expenses which have necessarily occurred in preserving the thing found, as if a man were to find an animal, he would be entitled to be re-imbursed for his keeping, for advertising in a reasonable manner, that he had found it, and to any re- " ward which.may have been offered by the owner for the recovery of such lost thing. Domat, 1. 2, t. 9, s, 2,.n.2. Vide Story, Bailm. § 35. And when the owner does not reclaim the goods lost, they belong to the finder. 1 Bl. Com. 296; 2 Kent’s Com. 290.