| Revision as of 17:35, 26 December 2024 editS Marshall (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers32,399 edits A new article | Revision as of 17:37, 26 December 2024 edit undoS Marshall (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers32,399 edits It wasn't the packet that was at issue -- it was the ££££Next edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| ==Judgment== | ==Judgment== | ||
| The lower court's judgment was reversed, and ] found that Bridges' claim to the |
The lower court's judgment was reversed, and ] found that Bridges' claim to the bank notes outweighed Hawkesworth's.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Bridges v Hawkesworth|court=Queen's Bench |date=1851 |quote=The general right of the finder to any article which has been lost as against all the world except the true owner, was established in the case of Armory v. Delamirie… The case, therefore, resolves itself into the single point, on which it appears that the learned Judge decided it: namely, whether the circumstance of the notes being found inside the defendant’s shop, gives him, the defendant, the right to have them as against the plaintiff who found them... We find therefore, no circumstances in this case to take it out of the general rule of law, that the finder of a lost article is entitled to it as against all parties except the real owner and we think that rule must prevail... Our judgment therefore is, that the plaintiff is entitled to these notes as against the defendant, and that the judgment of the Court below must be reversed, and judgment given for the plaintiff for 50 pounds. The plaintiff to have the costs of the appeal.}}</ref> | ||
| ==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 17:37, 26 December 2024
Bridges v Hawkesworth, 21 L.J.Q.B. 75 , was an 1851 English legal case decided in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court.
Facts
In October 1847, Bridges found bank notes on the floor of a shop. Hawkesworth, a partner in the firm owning the shop, was summoned, and Bridges gave him the notes, for Hawkesworth to give to the rightful owner.
The rightful owner did not return to claim their property, so Hawkesworth advertised the bank notes in The Times newspaper, offering to return the money (less his costs) to anyone who could describe the package in which the notes had been found, and pay an indemnity. The advertisement went unanswered. Three years elapsed, and then Bridges asked Hawkesworth for the money. Hawkesworth declined and Bridges sued. The lower court ruled for Hawkesworth.
Judgment
The lower court's judgment was reversed, and Patteson J found that Bridges' claim to the bank notes outweighed Hawkesworth's.
References
- DeScioli, Peter; Karpoff, Rachel (June 2015). "People's Judgments About Classic Property Law Cases". Human Nature. 26 (2): 191–192.
- Bridges v Hawkesworth (Queen's Bench 1851) ("The general right of the finder to any article which has been lost as against all the world except the true owner, was established in the case of Armory v. Delamirie… The case, therefore, resolves itself into the single point, on which it appears that the learned Judge decided it: namely, whether the circumstance of the notes being found inside the defendant’s shop, gives him, the defendant, the right to have them as against the plaintiff who found them... We find therefore, no circumstances in this case to take it out of the general rule of law, that the finder of a lost article is entitled to it as against all parties except the real owner and we think that rule must prevail... Our judgment therefore is, that the plaintiff is entitled to these notes as against the defendant, and that the judgment of the Court below must be reversed, and judgment given for the plaintiff for 50 pounds. The plaintiff to have the costs of the appeal.").