Hannah V.

Peel
A jurisprudence project report
Submitted By: Mukund Kakkar
Section-C B.Com. LL.b. (Hons.)
Roll No. 246/17
Submitted to: Prof. Ajay Ranga

This project is an attempt to explain the English case law of Hannah V. Peel
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Facts of the case............................................................................................................................................ 5
Introduction to case ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Arguments advanced by the plaintiff............................................................................................................ 7
Arguments advanced by the defendant ....................................................................................................... 9
Decision ....................................................................................................................................................... 10
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................ 12
 Acknowledgement

I hereby thank my Jurisprudence professor, Prof. Ajay Ranga for giving me an opportunity to
explore more about the said topic and increase my knowledge.

I further thank my family for believing in me and making me capable enough to be able to
present the given project on its due date.

Finally I would like to thank all my mentors and teachers who shaped me as a student which I
am today.
Table of Cases

Sr. No. Name of the Case Citation

1. Bridges v. Hawkesworth 21 L.J. Q.B. 75

2. Elwis v. Brigg Gas Company Ch.D. 562

93 ER 664, Volume 93
3. Armory v. Delamirie

4. Staffordshire Water Company v. Sharman 2 Q.B. 44

Facts of the case
Lance corporal Duncan Hannah (Plaintiff)

Major Hugh Edward Ethelston Peel (Defendant)

Tried by Birkett, J.

On December 13 1938, the freehold of Gwernhaylod House, Overton-on-Dee, Shropshire, was

conveyed to the defendant, who from that time to the end of 1940 never himself occupied the
house and it remained unoccupied until October 5 1939, when it was requisitioned but was
released soon after.

The house remained unoccupied until July 18 1940, when it was again requisitioned and the
defendant was being compensated by a cash payment.

In August 1940, the plaintiff was stationed at the house which was serving as a sick-bay and
while adjusting the curtains, he saw the brooch for the first time but mistook it as a piece of dirt
or plaster and threw it outside the window, next morning he observed that it was indeed a
brooch.

He took the brooch with him when he went home and his wife informed him that it could be of
value and he should inform someone about it. By the end of October 1940, he informed his CO
(Commanding Officer) and on his suggestion handed it over to the police.

By August of 1942, the police failed to find the owner of the brooch and returned the brooch to
the defendant who sold the same in October of the same year.

There was no evidence that defendant had any knowledge of the existence of the brooch before it
was found by the plaintiff.

The defendant offered the plaintiff a reward for the brooch but he refused to take it and
maintained his exclusive claim on the brooch other than the owner.

The defendants’ attorney demanded the return of the brooch and after 15 days of this letter, they
filed a writ claiming the return of the brooch, or its value and damages for its detention.
Introduction to case
Hannah v. Peel is an English case law which establishes that the owner of the locus in quo i.e.
the scene of the event does not have a greater right to possession over the finder of the lost
property that is unattached to the land.

Peel bought a home in 1938 but never had he inhibited it. The house was requisitioned time and
again over the period of the Second World War. Hannah was a soldier who was stationed at this
house which was being treated as a sick-bay. One day, while adjusting the black-out curtains,
Hannah discovered something which he thought of as a piece of plaster but next day in day light,
he found that it was actually a brooch.

He then took the brooch to his wife when he returned for home and was then informed that the
brooch may be of value. Hannah then, on the advice of his CO, handed the brooch over to the
police.

2 years after, the police couldn’t find the real owner and then returned the brooch to Peel, who
later sold it.

There was no evidence that Peel had any knowledge about the brooch being there in his property
or that the brooch even existed in the first place.

Hannah asked Peel to return the brooch with a letter claiming that he had the better claim on the
brooch than Peel himself as he was the finder of the brooch whereas, the brooch was already sold
and Hannah asked Peel if he would like a reward against his claim for finding the said brooch.
But, Peel denied the said sum and maintained his claim on the brooch.

15 days after the letter was sent, the attorney for Hannah filed a suit in the court for his claim
against the brooch, or for its value and the damages for its detention.

It was held that the Birkett, J. that the plaintiff had the better claim over the defendant because
mere ownership of locus in quo of the brooch for the defendant was not enough. He should have
had the knowledge of the existence of the brooch and his intent to exclude anyone else from its
use.
Arguments advanced by the plaintiff
Scott Cairns for the plaintiff advanced that since the brooch was found by the plaintiff, he is
entitled to the brooch as against all persons other than the owner, who is unknown.

The precedent of Bridges v. Hawkesworth1 was believed to be on point. In this case, the plaintiff
found a parcel of bank-notes which were found in the defendants’ shop and gave it to the owner
of the shop. It should be noted that the part of the shop where the parcel was found was the
public part of the shop. After, asking the shop owner to find the owner and return the parcel to
him but after a period of time the owner was not found and the plaintiff laid claim against him
since he denied returning it. It was held that the plaintiff had the better claim since he was the
one who actually found the parcel over the defendant who didn’t even knew that the parcel was
there in his shops premises. Mr. Justice O. W. Holmes, Sir Frederick Pollock and Sir John
Salmond all consider the decision in Bridges v. Hawkesworth to be correct; Mr. Justice Holmes
on the ground that " the " shopkeeper, not knowing of the thing, could not have the " intent to
appropriate it, and, having invited the public to his " shop he could not have the intent to exclude
them "from it"; Sir Frederick Pollock on the lack of de facto control by the shopkeeper; and Sir
John Salmond on the absence of the animus possidendi2.

Another Case law which was discussed was of Elwis v. Brigg Gas Co. 3explained further that for
a claim to hold good over the claim of the finder of the property, the property must be attached
with the land which is owned by the owner. If the property is unattached, which is what
happened in this case; that the property was unattached to the land and hence the finder of the
property, i.e., the defendants’ claim was held to be good over the property, i.e., the brooch.

One more convincing case law which was presented by the plaintiff’s attorney was of Armory v.
Delamirie4 in which a boy found a jewel while sweeping the chimney and took it to the
goldsmith to find out its value. The goldsmith knowing the value but in an attempt to deceive the
boy informed that the jewel was of three and a half pence after listening to which, the boy
demanded the jewel back. The shopkeeper then returned only the socket of the jewel after taking

1
21 L.J. Q.B. 75
2
Prof. Goodhart, A.L., Three Cases on Possession in, (1931), at pp. 76-90
3
Ch.D. 562
4
93 ER 664, Volume 93
out the stones. The boy further filed a suit against the goldsmith for the claim of damages. The
question in front the court was whether the finder of an object has a right of ownership that the
court will recognize against someone other than the rightful owner. It was held that the plaintiff
has a right of ownership that is cognizable, yet falls short of absolute.
The Plaintiff who found the jewel has a right of ownership which is sufficient to enable the
finder to keep the jewel against any claim save that of the rightful owner.

In the case of Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman5, the plaintiffs hired defendants to clean the
pool which was owned by the plaintiffs and was in need of cleaning. During the cleaning
process, many items were found including 2 gold rings. The plaintiff demanded the gold rings
from the defendant who refused to do so and instead gave the rings to the police and asked them
to find the real owners. The police failed to find the real owner and returned the rings to the
defendant. The plaintiffs sued in detinue for the recovery of the rings and the lower court on the
precedent of Armory v. Delamirie6 and Bridges v. Hawkesworth 7ruled the decision in favor of
the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed. In the court of appeal, it was held that the plaintiffs, as
freeholders of the land upon which the pool was situated, had the right to forbid anyone from
coming on to their land, and also, had the right to direct exactly how the pool was to be cleaned.
Further, that they had the right to direct the disposition of any item found during the pool’s
cleaning.
The Court found this case to be one in which an item was found upon private property when the
property owner was unaware of its existence. This case is decided and distinguished from the
decisions of Armory v. Delamirie and Bridges v. Hawkesworth, by the principle that possession
of land carries with it a de facto possession of everything that is upon the land, so long as the
landowner exercises his general power of ownership over the land and expresses intent to
disallow interference from others. Thus, the location of the pool, being private rather than public,
was never outside of Plaintiff’s general power of ownership.

5
2 Q.B. 44
6
Infra 4
7
Infra 1
Arguments advanced by the defendant
Binney for the defendants advanced the argument that the defendant was entitled to the
possession of the brooch because; when it was found it was on the property of the defendant.

The precedent of Southstafford Shire Water Co. v. Sharman8 was used by the defendants where
Lord Russell of Killowen C.J. "The general principle seems to me to be that where a person has
possession of house or land, with a manifest intention to exercise control over it and the things
which may be upon it or in it, then, if something is found on that land, whether by an employee
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. If that statement of law is correct, the defendant here should succeed.

Another case law which was used as a precedent by the defendants was of the case of Elwes v.
Brigg Gas Co.9 where the company found an ancient boat during an excavation of a piece of land
and claimed ownership of it but a counter claim was put forward by the owner of the land saying
the soil belonged to him in which the boat was found in and the company had to dig the boat out
in order to move it. It was held that the land owner had the rights over the boat since it was found
on his soil and the company happened to discover it while excavating for their own purposes.

In neither of Southstafford Shire Water Co. v. Sharman nor the Elwes v. Brigg Gas Co. case did
the owner had the knowledge of the existence of the thing found on their properties yet the
decision was given in their favor.

Bridges v. Hawkesworth can be distinguished on the ground that the parcel of notes was found in
a part of the shop to which the public had access in effect they were found in a public place. If
Bridges v. Hawkesworth is not distinguishable, it has been overruled by South Staffordshire
Water Co. v. Sharman and Elwes v. Briggs Gas Co.

8
Infra 5
9
Infra 3
Decision
The decision was made in favor of the plaintiff.

Birkett, J. stated that there is no issue of fact in this case between the parties but as to the law,
rival claims of the parties can be stated in this way: The plaintiff says “I claim the brooch as its
finder and I have good title against the world, save only the true owner” and the defendant says
“My claim is superior to yours inasmuch as I am the freeholder. The brooch was found on my
property, although I was never in occupation, and my title, therefore, ousts yours and in the
absence of the true owner I am entitled to the brooch or its value.

The learned judge for this case then talked about the case of Bridges v. Hawkesworth and quoted
what the sitting judge, Patteson, J. said: "The notes which are the subject of this action were
incidentally dropped, by mere accident in the shop of the defendant, by the owner of them. The
facts do not warrant the supposition that they had been deposited there intentionally, nor has the
case been put at all upon that ground. The plaintiff found them on the floor, they being
manifestly lost by someone. 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
which has never been disputed. This right would clearly have accrued to the plaintiff had the
notes been picked up by him outside the shop of the defendant and if he once had the right, the
case finds that he did not intend, by delivering the notes to the defendant, to waive his title (if
any) which he had to them, but they were handed to the defendant merely for the purpose of
delivering them to the owner should he appear." Then a little later: "The case, therefore, resolves
itself into the single point on which it 1945 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. After discussing
Birkett, J. said that the cases, and the argument, the learned judge said: "If the discovery had
never been communicated to the defendant, could the real owner have had any cause of action
against him because they were found in his house? Certainly not. The notes never were in the
custody of the defendant, nor within the protection of his house, before they were found, as they
would have been had they been intentionally deposited there; and the defendant has come under
no responsibility, except from the communication made to him by the plaintiff, the finder, and
the steps taken by way of advertisement. . . . 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
persons except the real owner, and we think that that rule must prevail, and that the learned judge
was mistaken in holding that the place in which they were found makes any legal difference.

Birkett, J. further said that there is no doubt that in this case the brooch was lost in the ordinary
meaning of that term, and I should imagine it had been lost for a very considerable time. Indeed,
from this correspondence it appears that at one time the predecessors in title of the defendant
were considering making some claim. But the moment the plaintiff discovered that the brooch
might be of some value, he took the advice of his commanding officer and handed it to the
police. His conduct was commendable and meritorious. The defendant was never physically in
possession of these premises at any time. It is clear that the brooch was never his, in the ordinary
acceptation of the term, in that he had the prior possession. He had no knowledge of it, until it
was brought to his notice by the finder. A discussion of the merits does not seem to help, but it is
clear on the facts that the brooch was " lost " in the ordinary meaning of that word; that it was "
found " by the plaintiff in the ordinary meaning of that word, that its true owner has never been
found, that the defendant was the owner of the premises and had his notice drawn to this matter
by the plaintiff, who found the brooch. In those circumstances I propose to follow the decision in
Bridges v. Hawkesworth, and to give judgment in this case for the plaintiff
Bibliography
https://blog.richmond.edu/lawr516/files/2014/08/hannah-v-peel-1945-1945-kb-509.pdf
[Online] Hannah v. Peel accessed on 17th April 2018 at 19:5

https://www.casebriefs.com/ [Online] Multiple cases/ topics repeated access