Favorite v. Miller

Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1978 · Property

Propertyfinderstrespasstreasure trovefinder's rightsfinderstrespasser finderembedded in soil

Facts

The defendant believed a fragment of the destroyed King George III statue might be on the plaintiffs' private property in the Davis Swamp area of Wilton, Connecticut. Knowing the land was privately owned and after being advised to obtain permission, he entered without permission, used a metal detector, and dug up a twenty-pound fragment embedded about ten inches below the surface. He removed the fragment without notifying the plaintiffs, later agreed to sell it to the Museum of the City of New York for $5500, and the plaintiffs learned of the find only from a newspaper. The dispute concerned whether the defendant's claim as finder was superior to the plaintiffs' claim as landowners.

Issue

When a person knowingly trespasses onto private land and excavates an object embedded in the soil, does that person's claim as finder prevail over the claim of the landowners? More specifically, was the defendant entitled to the statue fragment as finder rather than the plaintiffs as owners of the land where it was found?

Rule

Where found property is embedded in the earth, possession is presumed to be in the owner of the land, and the finder acquires no rights to it. In addition, except where the trespass is trivial or merely technical, a trespassing finder is deprived of the normal preference a finder might otherwise have over the owner of the place where the property was found. Courts should not rest modern ownership rights on conjectural determinations about the intent of unknown persons from events occurring centuries earlier.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Evan Cross, a hobbyist in Tulsa, learned from neighbors that an old brass machine part might be buried on privately owned farmland belonging to Nina Lopez. Knowing the field was private and without asking permission, Evan entered at night with a detector, dug about a foot into the soil, and removed the part.

In a dispute between Evan and Nina over the machine part, who has the superior claim?

Explanation. The landowner has the superior claim. The majority rule is that property embedded in the earth is presumed to be in the possession of the owner of the land, so the finder acquires no rights. Separately, a finder whose trespass is not merely technical or trivial loses the normal preference finders might otherwise have over the owner of the place where the item was found.