Corliss V. Wenner and Anderson

Corliss v. Wenner and Anderson

FACTS: Wenner hired Anderson to build a driveway on his ranch near Sun Valley, Idaho. Anderson and his employee, Corliss, were excavating soil when they uncovered a jar containing 96 gold pieces dating 1857 to 1914. Anderson and Corliss first agreed to split the coins but then argued, so Anderson fired Corliss and turned the coins over to Wenner.

ISSUE: Does the finder of lost or abandoned property and treasure trove acquire a right to possess the property against the entire world but the rightful owner regardless of the place of findings? Should the “finder’s”” keepers” rule of treasure trove be admissible in this case?

ANALYSIS: The finder of lost property or treasure trove, which includes gold coins so long concealed that the owner is dead or unknown, has "a right to possess the property against the entire world but the rightful owner regardless of the place of finding." On the other hand, the finder of mislaid property, which is personal property the owner intentionally set down but then forgot where he put it, must give the property to the owner of the premises, who has a duty to safeguard the property for its true owner. The modern trend is against the "finders keepers" rule of treasure trove, which goes back to the right of possession to buried Roman treasures discovered in feudal times.

CONCLUSION: Judgment for Wenner affirmed.

Lindh v. Surman

FACTS: In August 1993, Rodger Lindh (Rodger) proposed marriage to Janis Surman (Janis). Rodger presented her with a diamond engagement ring that he had purchased for $17,400. Janis accepted the marriage proposal and the ring. Two months later, Rodger broke the engagement and asked Janis to return the ring. She did so. Rodger and Janis later reconciled, with Rodger again proposing marriage and again presenting Janis with the engagement ring. Janis accepted the proposal and the ring. In March 1994, Rodger again broke the engagement and asked Janis to return the ring. This...