Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
D hired Anderson Asphalt Paving to construct a driveway on his ranch. Anderson (D), the owner of Anderson Asphalt Paving, and his employee, P, were excavating soil for the driveway when they unearthed a glass jar containing paper wrapped rolls of gold coins. Anderson (D) and P collected, cleaned, and inventoried the gold pieces dating from 1857 to 1914. The coins themselves weighed about four pounds. Anderson (D) and P agreed to split the gold coins between themselves, with Anderson (D) retaining possession of all the coins. Anderson (D) eventually fired P. Anderson (D) later gave possession of the coins to D in exchange for indemnification on any claim P might have against him regarding the coins. P sued Anderson (D) and D for possession of some or all of the coins. D filed a motion for summary judgment. All parties agree that the coins were unearthed during excavation, that the coins had been protected in paper tube rolls and buried in a glass jar estimated to be about seventy years old. The district court eventually ruled that the 'finders keepers' rule of treasure trove had not been previously adopted in Idaho, that it was not a part of the common law of England incorporated into Idaho law at the time of statehood by statute, and that the coins, having been carefully concealed for safekeeping, fit within the legal classification of mislaid property, to which the right of possession goes to the landowner. In the alternative, the court ruled that the coins, like the topsoil being excavated, were a part of the property owned by D and that Anderson (D) and P were merely D's employees. P appealed. P contends that the gold coins were either lost, abandoned, or treasure trove. D argues that the property was properly categorized as either embedded or mislaid property.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co