J.Q.B

75; unless it has been simply laid aside and left by mistake; Mc Avpy v. Medina, 11 Allen (Mass.) 548, 87.Am. Dec. 733; I.oucks V. Gallogly, 1 Mise. 22, 23 N. Y. Supp. 126; or a conductor who finds money on the cars may retain it as against the company; New York & H. R. Co. v. Haws, 56 N. Y. 175; or an employs in a mill, who finds bank-notes among old papers bought to be manufactured over; Bowen v. Sullivan, 62 Ind. 281, 30 Am. Rep. 172. Drift-logs found on the banks of a river may be rightfully retained by the finder as against the riparian owner; Deaderick V. Quids, 86 Tenn. 14, 5 S. W. 487, 6 Am. St. Rep. 812; but an aerolite which buries itself in the ground belongs rather to the owner of the' soil on which it falls than to one who observes it and digs it out; Goddard V. Winchell, 86 la. 71, 52 N. W. 1124, 17 L. R. A. 788, 41 Am. St. Rep. 481. So goldbearing quartz found buried in the earth, where it was placed by some unknown person, belongs to the owner of the soil as against the finder; Ferguson v. Ray,- 44 Or. 557, 77 Pac. 600, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 477, 102 Am. St. Rep. 648, 1 Ann. Cas. 1. A prehistoric boat found by a gas company while excavating on land leased by it belongs to the lessor; 33 Ch. D. 566. Chattels lying upon private lands are, prima fade, in the possession of the owner of the laud; [1896] 2 Q. B. 44. Money found in furniture belonging to the estate of a deceased person belongs to the administrator as against the fin(^r; Kuykendall v. ii''isher, 61 W. Va. 87, 56 S. E. 48, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 94, 11 Ann. Cas. 700; that the finder of a thing in a private place has no title against the owner-of the place, see 39 Am. L. Rev. 922 and cases cited. Where a workman employed by a corporation to clear out a pool on its land found two rings in the mud at the bottom of the pooi, the corporation was held entitled to recover the rings in an action of detinue; [1896] 2 Q. B. 44. In that case Lord Russell, C. J., put the decision on the ground that the possession of land carried with it everything attached to it, or under it, and he expressly distinguished the last English case above cited, which, he said, stood by itself on the special ground that the notes being dropped in the public part of the shop were never In is no more direct authority on the question; but the general principle seei Os to me to be that where a person has possession of house or laud, with a manifest intention to exercise control over it and the things which may be upon or in it, then, if something is found on that land, whether by an employ6 of the owner or by a stranger, the presumption is that the possession of that thing is in the owner of the locus in quo.” A commentator upon these cases says: “This language applies to land with respect to which the public has no easement, which differentiates the case from findings in shops and other public places. The real distinction, however, is this, that those things belong to the owner of the premises in which they are found, which, either from their nature, or from the circumstances attending the loss, become practically part and parcel of the freehold, such as the rings, covered by the water and mud, which undoubtedly belonged to the owner of the land, and the aerolite which buried Itself in the ground to the depth of three feet; or, to use the language of some of the cases, those things belong to the owqei which may be regarded as accretions to his land, such as the aerolite, the rings, or driftlogs; though the latter may be pursued and taken by a former finder, from whom they have escaped.’' 36 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 588; Ferguson V. Ray, 44 Or. 557, 77 Pac. 600, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 477, 102 Am. St Rep. 648, 1 Ann. Cas. 1. The contrary view is taken by some courts, which hold that the owner of the soil acquires no title to treasure trove by virtue of his ownership; Weeks v. Hackett, 104 Me. 264, 71 Atl. 858, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1201, 120 Am. St. Rep. 390, 15 Ann. Cas. 1156 (coins found buried in the earth); Danielson v. Roberts, 44 Or. 108, 74 Pac. 913, 65 D. R. A. 526, 102 Am. St Rep. 627 (coins secreted in an old building). Where a man buys a chattel which, unknown to himself and the vendor, contains valuable property, he will, as to that, be considered merely as a finder. When a person purchased at a public auction a bureau, and appropriated to his own use a purse containing money, found in a secret drawer, the existence of which at the time of the sale was not known to any one, it was held that there was a delivery of the bureau but not of the purse and money, and it was a simple case of finding and subject to the law in such cases; 7 M. & W. 623. See I^r. Leg. Max. 8th Am. ed. 807. 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 ex contractu, may be called a quasi deposit; and it is governed by the same general rules as common deposits. The depositary e® contractu; Doctor & Stud. Dial. 2, c. 38; 2 Bulstr. 306, 312; 1 Rolle 125. The finder Is not bound to take the goods he finds; yet, when he ‘does undertake the custody, he is required to exercise reasonable diligence in preserving the property; and he will be responsible as a bailee for gross negligence. Some of the old ‘authorities laid down that “if a man find butter, and by his negligent keeping it putrefy, or if a man find garments, and by his negligent keeping they be moth-eaten, no action lies.” So it is if a man find goods and then lose them again. Bacon, Abr. Bailment, D; and in support of this position, Leon. 123, 223; Ow. 141; 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 be held responsible for gross negligence, or fraud; Story, Bailm. § 85. On the other hand, the finder of an article is entitled to recover all expenses which have necessarily occurred in preserving the thing found; Domat, 1. 2, t. 9, s. 2, n. 2. But unlike salvors by water, he can claim nothing beyond this; 2 H. Bla. 254; Marvin v. Treat, 37 Conn. 96, 9 Am. Rep. 307; Trustees of Mlllercek Tp. v. Brighton Stock Yards Co., 27 Ohio St. 435; Shoul. Bailrn. 28. Where money was found upon a body floating in the water and paid into the admiralty court by the salvors, they were awarded half of the amount as salvage, and the public administrator of the county in which the court was located was held entitled to the balance as against the finders, or the United States, claiming under its prerogative rights of a sovereign; Gardner v. Ninety-Nine Gold Coins, 111 Fed. 552. The public administrator was considered to represent the true owner in like manner as would an ordinary administrator. When the owner does not reclaim the goods lost, they belong to the finder; 1 Bla. Com. 296; 2 id. 9; 2 Kent 290; and should there be several finders, they share in common; Keron v. Cashman (N. J.) 33 Atl. 1055, 19 N.