The following statement appears in many cases involving possessory rights: "A finder has good title against all persons except the true owner." True or False? Why?
- False. In many cases the finder does not prevail.
- The finder does not prevail if (she/he) is a trespassing on the owner ‘s premises, the found property goes to the owner of the premises.
- The finder will also not prevail over the owner of the premises if the property is mislaid. In Hannah vs Peel it was established that the owner of the premises has a better chance of returning the property to the true owner who misplaced the owner of the premises will also prevail over the finder when the property is mislaid on the owner of the premises land.
4. Please state the holding of Blanchette v. Blanchette (S-2, p. 21) and give a concise summary of the reasoning on which the holding is based.
…show more content…
Blanchette) only intended to confer survivorship rights. The court established a rule that establishes a rule that joint tenancy normally by default is an immediate gifts unless there is strong evidence that proves that the donor intended to convey survivorship rights using joint tenancy as a revocable will substitute or had another intention. irrevocable property rights the question of ownership of property acquired by one party but placed in joint names is one of fact: it depends on the intent of the funding party. The court’s reasoning is based on the fact that a will substitute trend was occurring at the time. Many individuals made the choice to confer survivorship rights of their estate through will substitutes, using them as a revocable gift that could be left to survivors instead of using the traditional probate will. The court wanted to give will substitutes legal
III. Issue. The issue is whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the employer appellee on the employee appellant’s sexual harassment claim, and whether the court was right in excluding evidence regarding the sexual
MacEwing, J. M. (October 25, 2005). Making Sense of the Recent Case Law. Jenkins Marzban Logan
BOWERS V. HARDWICK, 478 U. S. 186 :: Volume 478 :: 1986 :: Full Text." US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez. .
nature of s. 281 lent itself to legal debate under section 2 of the relatively
Rufus attempts to steal it but gets caught by an officer patrolling the street, and gets sent to the House of Refuge. In the 1800’s theft was one of the most common crimes that were committed. Pickpocketing was much more likely to happen back then than it is to happen now. Punishment for stealing included hanging or many years in prison, depending on if it was your first offense.
Arizona V. Hicks discusses the legal requirements law enforcement needs to meet to justify the search and seizure of a person’s property under the plain view doctrine. The United States Supreme Court delivered their opinion of this case in 1987, the decision is found in the United States reports, beginning on page 321, of volume 480. This basis of this case involves Hicks being indicted for robbery, after police found stolen property in Hick’s home during a non-related search of the apartment. Hicks had accidentally discharged a firearm into the apartment below him, injuring the resident of that apartment. Police responded and searched Hicks apartment to determine the identity of the shooter, recover the weapon, and to locate other victims.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
"ELK V. WILKINS, 112 U. S. 94 :: Volume 112 :: 1884." US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2011. .
According to the Essentials of Criminal Law, the correct answer to this question is B. mislaid. To first understand why this is the correct answer, mislaid property must be defined. Mislaid property is, “property that is placed in a certain location by the possessor who then forgets to retrieve it” (Chamelin & Thomas, 2012, p. 164). Another important issue with mislaid property is that it can be subjected to larceny. For example, Andrew finds a box of new shoes in his train sear; however, he is not allowed to take these shoes unless he intends to return them to the rightful
The issue is whether under the rule of trespass to land, could the shopper bring a case of trespass to land against the manger . Trespass to land happens when a person intentionally enters onto the land of another, and that act is unauthorized or unlawful beyond a scope of time that the owner consented to. The first element is intent; this is an issue of whether or not the shopkeeper knowingly went onto the property of the shopper. The manger knew that he was going onto the property of the because he located the shopper address and then entered the property of the shopper. The entry element is satisfied because it says that the manger entered the property in the case. As far as the element of the entry being unlawful or unauthorized may be an issue that the manger may make. He may say that he had a defense of the shopkeeper’s privilege (which will be discussed later). However, the plaintiff could argue that it was unauthorized, meaning that permission was not given to the manger to
the house and the land were meant to go to the oldest son, or in Mrs
In addition to the aforementioned problem of identifying the rights was the complex process of discovering ‘root of title’ and finding the owners of the said rights in order to protect their interest in a piece of land. However the problem rested majorly in the name-based land charges register which made the process difficult by land charges incorrectly recorded against wrong or incorrect versions of names. Another problem was the protection of rights for those ‘in actual occupation’ who would lose the right if the right was not registered, as occurred in Hollington Bros v Rhodes [1951] and Lloyds Bank v Carrick [1996]. It is therefore understood that there is an onus on the purchaser, regardles...
The arguments for both sides of the appeal were previously published in the McGill Law
The common law doctrine of res gestae was first circumscribed definitively in the case of R v Bedingfield. The principal test to determine the admissibility
However, the court will most likely conclude that the damage sustained was immediate and direct. Thus Mark is liable under the tort of trespass.