Erickson v. Sinykin

15 Citing cases

  1. Zephier v. Agate

    957 N.W.2d 866 (Minn. 2021)   Cited 6 times

    Intent can be inferred from the owner's "conduct and the nature and situation of the property." Erickson v. Sinykin , 223 Minn. 232, 26 N.W.2d 172, 176 (1947) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although "mere lapse of time does not in and of itself establish abandonment," it is an important factor in determining whether property has been abandoned.

  2. McDonald v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.

    81 S.E.2d 525 (Ga. Ct. App. 1954)   Cited 2 times

    3. Where the property is not on the premises by virtue of the contractual duty of the employer to care for it, but, on the contrary, is lost or abandoned by the true owner, or stolen from him and there deposited, an employee of such employer who finds such property does so as an individual, and not as a servant of his master, and he is entitled to the property as against all the world except against the true owner. In re Savarino, 1 F. Supp. 331; Silcott v. Louisville Trust Co., supra; Cleveland Ry. Co. v. Durschuk, 31 Ohio App. 248, ( 166 N.E. 909); Toledo Trust Co. v. Simmons, 52 Ohio App. 373 ( 3 N.E.2d 661); Bowen v. Sullivan, 62 Ind. 281 (30 Am. R. 172); Erickson v. Sinykin, 223 Minn. 232 ( 26 N.W.2d 172, 170 A.L.R. 697); Danielson v. Roberts, 44 Ore. 108 ( 74 P. 913, 65 L.R.A. 526, 102 Am. St. R. 627); Roberson v. Ellis, 58 Ore. 219 ( 114 P. 100, 35 L.R.A. (NS) 979); Hamaker v. Blanchard, 90 Pa. 377 (35 Am. R. 664); Deaderick v. Oulds, 86 Tenn. 14 ( 5 S.W. 487, 6 Am. St. R. 812); 36 C. J. S. 773. See also Groover v. Tippins, 51 Ga. App. 47 (supra), relating to treasure trove.

  3. Kean v. Hurley

    179 F.2d 888 (8th Cir. 1950)   Cited 14 times

    A judgment or decree for injunction is usually in personam and as such binding upon the parties to the litigation and those who are represented by such parties or are in privity with them. Stated conversely, persons who are not parties to the injunction or in privity with them, and whose rights have not been adjudicated therein, are not bound by the decree and can not be held liable for acts done contrary thereto even though the decree assumes to bind them. Chase National Bank v. City of Norwalk, 291 U.S. 431, 54 S.Ct. 475, 78 L.Ed. 894; Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. Staff, 2 Cir., 42 F.2d 832; Regal Knitwear Co. v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 9, 65 S.Ct. 478, 89 L.Ed. 661; Scott v. Donald, 165 U.S. 107, 17 S.Ct. 262, 41 L.Ed. 648; LeTourneau Co. v. N.L.R.B., 5 Cir., 150 F.2d 1012. The suit here had for its object a judgment against the person as distinguished from a judgment against the property. The Supreme Court of Minnesota in Erickson v. Sinykin, 223 Minn. 232, 26 N.W.2d 172, 174, 170 A.L.R. 500, considered an action to determine the ownership of $760 in currency found by plaintiff in a room in defendant's hotel. In the course of the opinion the court, among other things, said, "We are limited in this action solely to a determination of the rights and remedies of the parties to the cause.

  4. Chance v. Certain Artifacts Found and Salvaged

    606 F. Supp. 801 (S.D. Ga. 1984)   Cited 18 times
    Declining "to accept the in specie award as a valid award in a salvage action"

    Hener v. United States, 525 F. Supp. 350, 354 (S.D.N.Y. 1981). Under the law of finds, the inference of abandonment may arise from lapse of time and nonuse of the property. Wiggins, 186 F. Supp. at 456; see also Erickson v. Sinykin, 223 Minn. 232, 26 N.W.2d 172 (1947), 170 A.L.R. 697. Unlike salvors who are granted a monetary award for their efforts, a finder acquires title to the salvage property. Since THE NASHVILLE has rested at the bottom of the Ogeechee, unclaimed by its owner since 1863, this Court concludes that the law of finds applies.

  5. Melco Investment Co. v. Gapp

    105 N.W.2d 907 (Minn. 1960)   Cited 12 times
    Recognizing that a contract party with option to terminate a contract after a deadline for performance must take "some positive act to manifest his intention to terminate the contract"

    1 Dunnell, Dig. (3 ed.) § 1. See, Westercamp v. Smith, 239 Iowa 705, 31 N.W.2d 347; Collins v. Collins, 348 Mich. 320, 83 N.W.2d 213, 68 A.L.R. 2d 575; cf. Erickson v. Sinykin, 223 Minn. 232, 26 N.W.2d 172, 170 A.L.R. 697. 3. Abandonment in its technical sense must be distinguished here from delay, laches, or bad faith on the part of plaintiff which renders it inequitable to grant specific performance.

  6. Bd., Ft. Cong. Ch. v. Cream Cty. Mut. Ins. Co.

    255 Minn. 347 (Minn. 1959)   Cited 24 times

    We think the record supports the findings of the trial court that the church building had not been abandoned for church purposes. It has been stated many times that abandonment is the voluntary relinquishment, surrender, or disclaimer of a known property right, absolutely and without reference to any particular person or purpose. It involves two elements — act and intention — and without the concurrence of these there can be no abandonment. There must be an actual relinquishment of possession accompanied by an intent to part permanently with the property in the goods. State v. McCoy, 228 Minn. 420, 38 N.W.2d 386; Erickson v. Sinykin, 223 Minn. 232, 26 N.W.2d 172, 170 A.L.R. 697; 1 Am. Jur., Abandonment, § 2; 1 Dunnell, Dig. (3 ed.) § 1. Abandonment is an issue of fact and is determined by the trier of fact. State v. Northwestern Nat. Bank, 219 Minn. 471, 486, 18 N.W.2d 569, 577. Although religious services were no longer held in the building, there was still some activity, as related above. It is our view that, although the building was not being used for the purpose of conducting religious rites as such, the use of the property was nevertheless for "church purposes" as that term is used in the policies.

  7. Dennis v. Northwestern National Bank

    81 N.W.2d 254 (Minn. 1957)   Cited 1 times

    Plaintiff asserts that the lower court should have submitted the question of whether the money was lost or abandoned to the jury as a fact issue for its finding. She cites M.S.A. 622.11; Erickson v. Sinykin, 223 Minn. 232, 26 N.W.2d 172, 170 A.L.R. 697, with Annotation at 706; Toledo Trust Co. v. Simmons, 52 Ohio App. 373, 3 N.E.2d 661, as controlling cases upon the facts. 1.

  8. State v. McCoy

    228 Minn. 420 (Minn. 1949)   Cited 11 times

    In a general sense, abandonment is the voluntary relinquishment, surrender, or disclaimer of a known property right, absolutely and without reference to any particular person or purpose. It involves two elements — act and intention — and without the concurrence of these there can be no abandonment. There must be an actual relinquishment of possession accompanied by an intent to part permanently with property in the goods. Erickson v. Sinykin, 223 Minn. 232, 26 N.W.2d 172; 1 Am. Jur., Abandonment, § 2; 1 Dunnell, Dig. Supp. § 1. Abandonment is an issue of fact and is determined by the trier of fact. State v. N.W. Nat. Bank, 219 Minn. 471, 486, 18 N.W.2d 569, 577. Goods are abandoned when an owner, with specific intent to relinquish his ownership in the property, casts the property aside, or when an owner who has accidentally lost his property ceases to look for it and gives it up as gone from him forever.

  9. Jackson v. Steinberg

    200 P.2d 376 (Or. 1949)   Cited 23 times
    In Jackson, supra., Mrs. Jackson, while working as a chamber maid at Arthur Hotel, discovered $800 concealed under the paper lining of a dresser drawer.

    Mislaid property is that which the owner has voluntarily and intentionally laid down in a place where he can again resort to it, and then has forgotten where he laid it. 34 Am. Jur., Lost Property, section 3; Cohen v. Manufacturers Safe Deposit Co., 271 App. Div. 428, 65 N.Y.S. 2d 791, 792. Abandoned property is that of which the owner has relinquished all right, title, claim, and possession, with the intention of not reclaiming it or resuming its ownership, possession or enjoyment. Foulke v. N.Y. Consolidated R. Co., 228 N.Y. 269, 127 N.E. 237, 9 A.L.R. 1384, 1386; Erickson v. Sinykin, 223 Minn. 232, 26 N.W.2d 172, 170 A.L.R. 697, 704; Bouvier Law Dict., title "Abandonment". "Treasure trove consists essentially of articles of gold and silver, intentionally hidden for safety in the earth or in some secret place, the owner being unknown."

  10. Hildebrandt v. Hagen

    38 N.W.2d 815 (Minn. 1949)   Cited 8 times

    Where a case is tried by the court and findings made, an erroneous finding must be challenged by specific assignment of error. Peterson v. James, 223 Minn. 33, 25 N.W.2d 300; Erickson v. Sinykin, 223 Minn. 232, 26 N.W.2d 172, 170 A.L.R. 697; 1 Dunnell, Dig. Supp. § 361. The petition for reargument is denied.