ARMORY v.

DELAMIRIE
1 Strange 505 (1722)
June 2, 2010; Page 35

Parties: Plaintiff – chimney sweeper who found a jewel

Defendant – appraiser

Procedure: Court of King’s Bench. The Chief Justice directed the jury.

Facts: A chimney sweeper’s boy found a jewel and carried it to the ∆s shop, who was a
goldsmith, to know what it was. The goldsmith delivered it to the apprentice to
appraise. The goldsmith offered the boy money for the jewel, the boy refused it,
and insisted to have the thing again; whereupon the apprentice delivered him back
the socket without the stones.

Issue: Does the chimney sweep have a better property right to the jewel than the
Goldsmith as to recover the jewel in trover?
Is the Goldsmith answerable for the neglect of his apprentice?

Contentions: The plaintiff contends he, being the finder of the jewel, should have absolute
possession to it over all but the true owner & that the true owner’s rights (original
jewel owner) are irrelevant to the trover action before the court.

Holding: The finder of the jewel, though he does not by such finding acquire absolute
property or ownership, has such a property as will enable him to keep it against all
but the rightful owner, and consequently may maintain trover. The action well lay
against the master, who gives a credit to his apprentice, and is answerable for his
neglect.

Rule: The finder of a chattel, though he does not by such finding acquire absolute
property or ownership, has such a property as will enable him to keep it against all
but the rightful owner