Armory v. Delamirie

A chimney sweeper's boy found a jewel and took it to a goldsmith's shop to learn what it was. The goldsmith's apprentice took out the stones and handed back only the socket. The report is headed: "Finder of a jewel may maintain trover."

Quick Revision

Parties

Armory — plaintiff. A chimney sweeper's boy who found a jewel.

Delamirie — defendant. A goldsmith, the master of the apprentice who took out the stones.

Procedural History

1. The report is dated 31 July 1722, In Middlesex, before Pratt C.J.
2. Armory sued Delamirie in trover.
3. The report records three points as ruled. On the value of the jewel, the Chief Justice directed the jury, and the jury made its assessment.
4. The report names no earlier court and gives no case number. It does not state costs.

Facts

1. The plaintiff was a chimney sweeper's boy.
2. He found a jewel.
3. He carried it to the defendant's shop. The defendant was a goldsmith. The boy wanted to know what the jewel was.
4. He delivered it into the hands of the apprentice.
5. The apprentice took out the stones pretending to weigh it.
6. He called to the master and told him it came to three halfpence.
7. The master offered the boy the money. The boy refused it and insisted on having the thing again.
8. The apprentice then delivered back the socket without the stones.
9. The plaintiff sued the master in trover.
10. Several people of the trade were examined on what a jewel of the finest water that would fit the socket would be worth.

Issues Raised

The report does not frame issues as questions. It lists three points ruled. They are put here as questions.

1. Does the finder of a jewel acquire a property in it enough to maintain trover, though he acquires no absolute property or ownership?
2. Does the action lie against the master for the apprentice's conduct?
3. How is the value of the jewel measured when the defendant does not produce it?

Arguments Contended

The reported case does not set out the arguments of either side. Nothing is recorded about what counsel for Armory or for Delamirie submitted.

Court's Reasoning

The report is a short headnote of the points ruled. It gives no separate opinion beyond that of Pratt C.J. and no numbered paragraphs.

Pratt C.J.

1. Held: the finder of a jewel does not acquire an absolute property or ownership by finding it.
2. Held: the finder has such a property as will enable him to keep it against all but the rightful owner. He may therefore maintain trover.
3. Held: the action lay against the master. The master gives a credit to his apprentice (trusts him) and is answerable for his neglect.
4. Noted: several people of the trade were examined on what a jewel of the finest water that would fit the socket would be worth.
5. Noted: the Chief Justice directed the jury on value. Unless the defendant produced the jewel and showed it was not of the finest water, they should "presume the strongest against him".
6. Held: the jury was to make the value of the best jewels the measure of damages. The jury did so.

Authorities

• Jones v. Hart, Salk. 441 (Holt C.J.). Cited in note 1 to the ruling that the action lies against the master who is answerable for his apprentice's neglect. No discussion is recorded.
• Mead v. Hamond, supra. Cited in the same note. No discussion is recorded.
• Grammer v. Nixon, post, 653. Cited in the same note. No discussion is recorded.

Also cited in footnotes: Jones v. Hart, Salk. 441; Mead v. Hamond, supra; Grammer v. Nixon, post, 653.

Judgement

1. The finder of a jewel may maintain trover.
2. The action lay against the master for his apprentice.
3. On damages, the Chief Justice directed the jury to presume the strongest against the defendant unless he produced the jewel and showed it was not of the finest water.
4. The jury made the value of the best jewels the measure of damages, as directed.
5. The report states no amount and no order on costs.

Legal Principle / Ratio

A finder gets no absolute ownership by finding. He still has a property good against everyone but the rightful owner, and so may sue in trover.

The master is answerable for the apprentice's neglect. A defendant who does not produce the jewel faces a presumption of the strongest value against him.

Key holding: "he has such a property as will enable him to keep it against all but the rightful owner".

Critical Analysis

Analysis based on the judgment text.

• The report gives no reasons for the three points. It states only what was ruled.
• It records no arguments, so the defence case is not visible.
• The report does not say how "the rightful owner" is to be shown, or what happens if the finder is himself a wrongdoer.
• The value presumption is stated as a direction to the jury. Its only stated limit is the defendant's power to produce the jewel and show it is not of the finest water.

Significance

• The report is a short statement of a finder's rights against a third party.
• It shows the presumption a jury is directed to draw when the defendant does not produce the goods.
• It links a finder's tort claim to the master's answerability for an apprentice.

Exam-Important Points

• Rule: the finder of a jewel may maintain trover. He keeps it against all but the rightful owner.
• Trap: the finder does not acquire absolute property or ownership.
• Rule: the master, who gives a credit to his apprentice, is answerable for his neglect.
• Rule: unless the defendant produces the jewel and shows it is not of the finest water, the jury presumes the strongest against him.
• Trap: the report gives no arguments and no numbered paragraphs. Do not cite paragraph numbers.

Prepared from the full text of the judgment. The citation is taken from the report heading (the source text misprints the page as 5O5; read as 505). It is not repeated in the body of the judgment text.