BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales High Court (King's Bench Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (King's Bench Division) Decisions >> Armory v Delamirie [1722] EWHC KB J94 (31 July 1722)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/1722/J94.html
Cite as: [1722] EWHC KB J94, (1722) 1 Strange 505, 93 ER 664

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

JISCBAILII_CASE_PROPERTY

Neutral Citation Number: [1722] EWHC KB J94
(1722) 1 Strange 5O5; 93 ER 664, KB

In Middlesex

31 July 1722

B e f o r e :

Pratt C.J.
____________________

Between:
ARMORY
v
DELAMIRIE

____________________


     
    Finder of a jewel may maintain trover.
    The plaintiff being a chimney sweeper's boy found a jewel and carried it to the defendant's shop (who was a goldsmith) to know what it was, and delivered it into the hands of the apprentice, who under pretence of weighing it, took out the stones, and calling to the master to let him know it came to three halfpence, the master offered the boy the money, who refused to take it, and insisted to have the thing again; whereupon the apprentice delivered him back the socket without the stones. And now in trover against the master these points were ruled:
    1. That the finder of a jewel, though he does not by such finding acquire an absolute property or ownership, yet he has such a property as will enable him to keep it against all but the rightful owner, and consequently may maintain trover.
    2. That the action well lay against the master, who gives a credit to his apprentice, and is answerable for his neglect.[1]
    3. As to the value of the jewel several of the trade were examined to prove what a jewel of the finest water that would fit the socket would be worth; and the Chief Justice directed the jury, that unless the defendant did produce the jewel, and shew it not to be of the finest water, they should presume the strongest against him, and make the value of the best jewels the measure of their damages: which they accordingly did.

Note 1   Jones v. Hart, Salk. 441. Cor. Holt C.J. Mead v. Hamond, supra. Grammer v. Nixon, post, 653.    [Back]

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/1722/J94.html