Armory v Delamirie [1722] is a seminal English case that holds that—if you find something lost, you can keep it against everyone except the real owner, and the person who wrongs you is responsible.
Case Citation: Armory v Delamirie [1722] EWHC KB J94, (1722) 1 Strange 505, 93 ER 664
- Court: England and Wales High Court (King’s Bench Division)
- Date: 31 July 1722
- Judge: Pratt C.J.
- Legal Focus: Property law, Law of finders, Employer liability, Trover (tort)
Facts: Armory v Delamirie
A chimney sweep boy (the plaintiff) found a jewel and took it to a goldsmith’s shop (the defendant) to determine its value.
The goldsmith’s apprentice removed the stones from the jewel under the pretext of weighing it, then offered the boy a few pennies for it.
The boy refused and asked for the jewel back.
The apprentice returned only the socket, without the stones.
Legal Issues
Can the finder of a lost item maintain an action for trover (claim for conversion of personal property)?
Is the master responsible for the actions of his apprentice?
How should the value of the jewel be determined if it is not returned?
Court’s Decision in Armory v Delamirie
Finder’s rights: The finder of a jewel does not gain full ownership, but has sufficient rights to keep it against everyone except the true owner. Thus, the finder can maintain a trover action.
Liability of the master: The master is liable for the actions of his apprentice.
Value of the jewel: Since the jewel was not returned, the jury was instructed to presume it was of the highest quality and assess damages accordingly.
Significance
The case establishes the principle that a finder has rights against all except the true owner. It also confirms that an employer (master) is responsible for the acts of employees (apprentices) done in the course of their work. It further provides guidance on calculating damages when stolen or withheld property is not returned.
References:
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/1722/J94.html
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM PROPERTY LAW:
- Jaggard v Sawyer [1995]: Key Takeaways for Property Law
- Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran [1990]: Legal Case Note
- J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2002] UKHL 30: Legal Note
Ruchi is a legal research writer with an academic background in CA, MBA (Finance), and M.Com. She specializes in digesting and summarizing complex judicial decisions into clear and structured case notes for students and legal professionals.