Page:The American Cyclopædia (1879) Volume VII.djvu/202

 194 FINDER FINDING Lord Clarendon, when impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. After being succes- sively attorney general and lord keeper, he was appointed in 1675 lord high chancellor of Eng- land. In 1681 he was created earl of Notting- ham, having for some years previous borne the title of Baron Finch of Daventry. He pursued a steady and consistent course in difficult times, and was distinguished not only for his legal erudition and soundness of judgment, but also for his eloquence and great powers of reasoning. He published various parliamentary speeches and legal arguments, and left in man- uscript some volumes of chancery reports, and notes on Coke's Institutes. FINDEN, William, an English engraver, born in London in 1787, died there, Sept. 20, 1852. He became noted at an early age as an en- graver of book plates. Being remarkable for a certain neatness of line and smoothness of finish, his works were very popular, and he was selected to engrave Lawrence's celebrated portrait of George IV., for which he received 2,000 guineas. He also engraved the " Village Festival" and the "Highlander's Return," both from well known pictures by Wilkie. He published some very extensive series of en- gravings, the best of them the " Gallery of British Art " by which he lost heavily. FINDING. The law of finding is, in some particulars, not quite settled. It is certain that nothing can be found that was not lost ; hence, unless the owner of property has it no longer in his possession or within his reach, and is deprived of all power over it, either by acci- dent or voluntarily, as when he casts i't away, another man who happens upon it acquires none of the rights of a finder. Lost goods were defined by the old law as ~bona vacantia; and Savigny, in his " Treatise of Possession," says, 18 : Vacua est, quam nemo detinet. The ancient law of treasure trove was said to apply to gold and silver only ; and indeed only to that which had been purposely hidden in the earth, and of which the owner was un- known. Originally it belonged to the. finder; but many centuries ago it was adjudged to be- long, to a greater or less extent, to the sov- ereign, and Grotius says this rule had become in his time jus commune, quasi gentium. Black- stone ("Commentaries," vol. i., p. 296) makes a distinction between goods hidden by the owner, which the owner never reclaimed, being prevented by death, forgetting, or neg- lect, and goods voluntarily or accidentally cast abroad. In the first case there was no inten- tion to abandon them, and when they were not the owner's they became the king's, to whom the finder must give them. In the lat- ter case they became the property of the finder. The law of treasure trove never had much force in this country ; and although there were formerly some colonial regulations and there are now some statutory provisions in respect to finding, they do not appear to have much force, unless it be in relation to Avhat may be termed wrecks. The law on this subject, so far as it can be gathered from the authorities, seems to be this : 1. The finder of lost property is owner of it against all the world excepting the original owner ; but the owner may re- claim it from the finder at any time, although leaving it unclaimed in the finder's hands for a sufficient length of time after the owner knew where it was and could claim it (perhaps 20 years, the ordinary period of prescription, might be necessary), would be equivalent to a waiver or abandonment of his ownership. The finder has therefore all the rights of action of an owner, either to recover possession of it, or damages for loss of it or injury to it. 2. The finder is always at liberty to leave what he finds untouched, and cannot be made ac- countable for any injury thereafter happening to it. But if he takes it into his possession, he acquires some rights and comes under some obligations which do not seem to be perfectly well defined. On the one hand, it is said by the old authorities, that if the thing found perish by his mere neglect, or without his ac- tive aid, he is not responsible. But the ten- dency of modern law is, that while he may abstain if he pleases from any interference whatever, if he chooses to take what he finds into his custody, he makes himself responsible not only for any wilful injury to it (which is quite certain), but for the consequences of his gross negligence. 3. As the correlative rule, or as the right which corresponds to this obli- gation, he may demand from the owner all his expenses necessarily incurred in keeping and preserving the property, and probably his reasonable expense in the way of advertising, or for similar charges for the benefit of the owner. We should say that where a finder takes into his possession the thing found, it be- comes a kind of bailment ; and the owner, by reclaiming and receiving it from the finder, as- sents as it were to this bailment ; and out of this constructive bailment grow the obligation and responsibility of the finder on the one hand, and his rights on the other. 4. It has been intimated by one high authority, at least, Judge Story ("Bailment," sections 35 et seq. that the finder may also make a further charge against the owner for compensation for care and labor, and perhaps for reward. There are moral reasons for this, but no legal authority ; and except when property is found at sea, and comes under the admiralty law of salvage, we know no law which authorizes the finder to claim more than his expenses. 5. For what- ever the finder may lawfully demand of the owner in respect to the property found, he has, we think, as one of the consequences of the constructive bailment above spoken of, a lien on the property itself ; that is, a right to hold it even against the owner until his de- mand is satisfied. 6. It seems now to be set- tled that the place where property is found has no effect upon the rights of the finder. Thus if A finds money on the floor of B's