Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The general rule attaching to the three types of property may be summarized as: A finder of property acquires no rights in mislaid property, is entitled to possession of lost property against everyone except the true owner, and is entitled to keep abandoned property. [1] This rule varies by jurisdiction. [2]
Since theft is the unlawful taking of another person's property, an essential element of the actus reus of theft is absent. [2] The finder of lost property acquires a possessory right by taking physical control of the property, but does not necessarily have ownership of the property. The finder must take reasonable steps to locate the owner. [1]
Nemo dat quod non habet, literally meaning "no one can give what they do not have", is a legal rule, sometimes called the nemo dat rule, that states that the purchase of a possession from someone who has no ownership right to it also denies the purchaser any ownership title.
But the penalties for picking up mislaid property depend on what you find and its value. Kansas Statute 21-5802 considers keeping mislaid property valued at less than $1,000 a class A nonperson ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
I'm unhappy about the quality of this whole article, but the section under "mislaid property" looks wrong to me. It cites precisely one authority McAvoy v. Medina, 93 Mass. (11 Allen) 548, (1866) for the proposition that "If the true owner does not return within a reasonable time (which varies considerably depending on the circumstances), the ...
Corliss v. Wenner, 34 P.3d 1100 (Idaho 2001), was a case decided by the Court of Appeals of Idaho that rejected the common law distinctions between lost, mislaid, and abandoned property and treasure trove. [1]
Historically, the common law has frowned on the use of defeasible estates as it interferes with the owners' enjoyment of their property and as such has made it difficult to create a valid future interest. Unless a defeasible estate is clearly intended, modern courts will construe the language against this type of estate.