Master Seminal finders’ law case establishing that a finder has title good against all but the true owner and setting a strong evidentiary presumption for damages against a wrongful holder. with this comprehensive case brief.
Armory v. Delamirie is the canonical English common law decision on the rights of finders of lost property and the doctrine of relativity of title. Decided by the King’s Bench in 1722, the case squarely addresses whether a mere finder, lacking proof of absolute ownership, nevertheless holds a legally cognizable interest sufficient to prevail against subsequent possessors who are neither the true owner nor otherwise vested with superior title. The court’s answer—yes—became a cornerstone of property doctrine: possession confers a title that is good against all the world except the true owner. Beyond recognizing the finder’s relative title, Armory is equally significant for its remedial and evidentiary guidance. The court endorsed a presumption against a wrongdoer who withholds or spoils evidence: absent the production of the chattel, the jury may presume the highest value consistent with the object’s description. Thus, the case simultaneously teaches (1) how common law prioritizes peaceful possession to avoid disorder in claims to personal property, and (2) how courts allocate the risks of uncertainty in valuation by placing them on the party who created the uncertainty through wrongdoing.
Armory v. Delamirie, 1 Str. 505, 93 Eng. Rep. 664 (K.B. 1722)
A young chimney sweep (Armory) found a jewel (a stone set in a socket) while performing his work. He took it to a goldsmith’s shop, operated by Delamirie, to ascertain its value. The goldsmith’s apprentice examined the jewel, removed the stones from the setting under pretense of weighing and valuing them, and then returned only the empty socket, offering Armory a trivial sum (three halfpence) for it. When Armory demanded the stones back, the apprentice refused to return them. Armory brought an action in trover (conversion) against the goldsmith, asserting that as the finder he had a possessory right to the jewel and that the goldsmith’s shop, acting through its apprentice, had wrongfully converted it. At trial, the jewel was not produced by the defendant. The trial judge directed the jury that, unless the jewel was produced, they should presume the stones were of the highest quality and value compatible with the setting, and they returned a verdict for Armory. The case came before the King’s Bench for review of the legal principles applied.
Does a finder of lost property acquire a possessory title that is enforceable against everyone except the true owner, and, if the defendant wrongfully withholds the item, may a jury presume the item is of the highest value consistent with the evidence when assessing damages?
A finder of lost property acquires a right to possess the item that is good against all persons except the true owner or one with a superior right. When a defendant wrongfully withholds or fails to produce the item, the law presumes against the wrongdoer; the jury may infer the highest value that the item could reasonably bear consistent with the description and evidence.
Yes. The finder’s possessory title prevails against the goldsmith, who lacked superior title. Because the defendant failed to return or produce the jewel, the jury could presume it contained stones of the highest quality that would fit the setting and award damages accordingly.
The court embraced the doctrine of relativity of title: property rights are not always absolute; rather, they are relative as between competing claimants. Possession, even by a finder who cannot prove true ownership, is sufficient evidence of title against a subsequent possessor who is neither the true owner nor someone deriving rights from the true owner. This principle promotes order and fairness by protecting peaceful possession and discouraging self-help or opportunistic seizures by later possessors. If finders could not enforce their possessory claims, the law would invite wrongdoing and create uncertainty in personal property. On remedies, the court applied a presumption against the wrongdoer. Because the goldsmith’s shop, through its apprentice acting within the scope of employment, refused to return or produce the jewel, it created evidentiary uncertainty about the jewel’s quality. In such circumstances, the court instructed that the jury should presume the most valuable quality of stones that would fit the setting. This adverse inference (sometimes characterized as a spoliation presumption) places the risk of uncertainty on the party who caused it by wrongful conduct and incentivizes bailees and possessors to return property promptly and honestly. The court’s approach also recognizes vicarious liability principles: the master (Delamirie) is answerable for the acts of his apprentice undertaken in the course of business. Together, these rules protect the rights of finders and deter conversion by those in positions of trust, such as jewelers or other evaluators.
Armory v. Delamirie anchors the common law of found property. It is the foundational statement that a finder has a legally enforceable possessory interest—good against all but the true owner. The case also illustrates the practical application of trover as the remedy for conversion and articulates a durable evidentiary rule: when a wrongdoer withholds the chattel, the law presumes the facts most strongly against that party for valuation purposes. For law students, the case frames later disputes about finders’ rights (e.g., contests between finders and landowners or employers) and introduces the concept of relative title that runs throughout property law. It also underscores how doctrinal rules (possession) interact with procedural and remedial doctrines (adverse inferences, damages) to shape real-world outcomes.
Armory sued in trover (the common-law action for conversion) to recover the value of the jewel rather than the jewel itself. Trover was appropriate because the defendant, through the apprentice, wrongfully exercised dominion over the chattel by retaining the stones and refusing to return them. Conversion permits a money judgment for the item’s value at the time of conversion, which was particularly suitable because the jewel was not produced.
No. The case establishes relative, not absolute, title. A finder’s possessory right prevails against subsequent possessors without superior claims but remains subordinate to the true owner. If the true owner appears, the true owner’s title defeats the finder’s. Armory’s significance is that the finder need not prove absolute ownership to recover against a wrongdoer.
Applying a presumption against the wrongdoer, the court directed that unless the jewel was produced, the jury should presume the stones were of the highest quality that would fit the setting and award damages accordingly. This adverse inference (akin to a spoliation presumption) shifts the risk of valuation uncertainty to the party who created it by wrongful withholding.
The apprentice acted within the scope of employment while evaluating the jewel, making the master (Delamirie) vicariously liable under common-law agency principles. The court treated the shop’s refusal to return the stones and the lowball offer as the defendant’s wrongful conversion, not merely the apprentice’s personal misconduct.
Not directly. Armory involved a dispute between a finder and a later possessor (a goldsmith), not a landowner. Later cases and contexts address finder–landowner conflicts (e.g., distinctions among lost, mislaid, and embedded property, and whether the landowner had prior possession or manifest control of the locus). Armory provides the baseline principle of the finder’s relative title, which subsequent cases refine in specific settings.
Armory’s core principles—possession as evidence of title, relativity of title, and adverse evidentiary presumptions—remain foundational. Statutes often incorporate or build upon these common-law rules (e.g., notice, reporting, and vesting provisions). Understanding Armory equips students to analyze how statutory schemes modify or codify common-law defaults when resolving contemporary finders’ disputes.
Armory v. Delamirie endures because it articulates a clear, workable rule: a finder’s possessory interest is legally protected against all but the true owner. In doing so, it stabilizes expectations in the circulation of personal property and curbs opportunism by later possessors who might otherwise exploit a finder’s inability to prove absolute title. Equally important, the case couples substantive property doctrine with remedial and evidentiary principles. By presuming highest value against a wrongdoer who withholds evidence, the court aligns incentives to encourage honest dealing and returns. For students and practitioners, Armory provides a compact but powerful illustration of how property rights, remedies, and procedural rules intersect to produce just outcomes.