State ex rel Scott v. Buzard

6 Citing cases

  1. Chappell v. United States

    119 F. Supp. 2d 1013 (W.D. Mo. 2000)   Cited 1 times

    Id. at 880. If the property is mislaid, then the owner of the premises where the property is found is entitled to possession, not the finder. State ex rel. Scott v. Buzard, 235 Mo.App. 636, 144 S.W.2d 847, 849 (1940). The factual record in this case does not support the Chappells' conclusion that the $82,000 is mislaid property.

  2. United States v. Cooper

    4:21-CR-190 SEP (SRW) (E.D. Mo. Jan. 13, 2023)

    In fact, none of the cases that discuss this statute are criminal cases. See Buchholz Mortuaries, Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue, 113 S.W.3d 192 (Mo. 2003); Foster v. Fidelity Safe Deposit Co., 174 S.W. 376 (Mo. 1915); Hoagland v. Forest Park Highlands Amusement Co., 70 S.W. 878 (Mo. 1902); State v. One Hundred Fifty-Two Thousand, Seven Hundred Sixty, and 00/100 Dollars, 87 S.W.3d 374 (Mo.Ct.App. 2002); and State ex rel. Scott v. Buzard, 144 S.W.2d 847 (Mo.Ct.App. 1940).

  3. Ritz v. Selma United Methodist Church

    467 N.W.2d 266 (Iowa 1991)   Cited 13 times
    Finding personal representative's act of abandoning decedent's real estate irrelevant in characterizing cash buried on the property because there was no evidence that decedent abandoned the cash

    Mislaid property is that which the owner has voluntarily placed somewhere and then forgets that it is there. 1 Am.Jur.2d Abandoned, Lost, and Unclaimed Property § 2, at 4 (1962) [hereinafter 1 Am.Jur.2d]. The right of possession of mislaid property is in the owner of the premises upon which it is found, as against all persons other than the true owner. Id.; State ex rel. Scott v. Buzard, 235 Mo.App. 636, 642, 144 S.W.2d 847, 849 (1940). Property which has become a part of the natural earth is not subject to the general rule of lost or mislaid property.

  4. 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.

    ls in the case at bar was a guest of the hotel. Their considerable value, and the manner of their concealment, indicate that the person who concealed them did so for purposes of security, and with the intention of reclaiming them. They were, therefore, to be classified not as lost, but as misplaced or forgotten property (Anno., 9 A.L.R. 1388, 1390), and the defendant, as occupier of the premises where they were found, had the right and duty to take them into his possession and to hold them as a gratuitous bailee for the true owner. 34 Am. Jur., Lost Property, section 7; McAvoy v. Medina, 93 Mass. (11 Allen) 548, 549, 87 Am. Dec. 733; Kincaid v. Eaton, 98 Mass. 139, 141, 93 Am. Dec. 142; Sovern v. Yoran, 16 Or. 269, 274, 20 P. 100, 8 Am. St. Rep. 293; Heddle v. Bank of Hamilton, 17 B.C. 306, 6 B.R.C. 256, 259; Foulke v. N.Y. Consolidated R. Co., supra ( 228 N.Y. 269, 127 N.E. 237, 9 A.L.R. 1384, 1386, 1387); Silcott v. Louisville Trust Co., 205 Ky. 234, 265 S.W. 612, 613, 43 A.L.R. 28; State ex rel. v. Buzard, 235 Mo. App. 636, 144 S.W.2d 847, 849; Norris v. Camp, (C.C.A. 10) 144 F.2d 1, 3; 34 Am. Jur., Lost Property, section 6. The decisive feature of the present case is the fact that plaintiff was an employee or servant of the owner or occupant of the premises, and that, in discovering the bills and turning them over to her employer, she was simply performing the duties of her employment.

  5. Everett v. Estate of Sumstad

    26 Wn. App. 742 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 2 times

    See Bowen v. Sullivan, 62 Ind. 281, 30 Am. Rep. 172 (1878) (finder of money in an unmarked envelope prevailed against the purchaser of the envelope; held it was unreasonable to believe that purchaser had bought the money in the envelope, when the envelope was among old papers the purchaser had bought to use in manufacturing paper); Livermore v. White, 74 Me. 452, 43 Am. Rep. 600 (1883) (true owner of tanned leather hides unintentionally left in vats sold to third party prevailed against finder of hides); Baugh v. Williams' Adm'r, 264 Ky. 167, 94 S.W.2d 330 (1936) (the estate of the true owner of money hidden between the lining and bottom of a traveling bag prevailed against the purchaser of the traveling bag; the issue of whether there was a contract for the sale of bag's contents was not raised); State ex rel. Scott v. Buzard, 235 Mo. App. 636, 144 S.W.2d 847 (1940) (true owner of cash in metal box hidden in the wall of a residence prevailed against the finder of the box). The unique facts of this case make it one of those apparently rare instances in history in which the objective manifestations of the contracting parties reflected a mutual assent to the sale of the unknown contents of the object sold.

  6. Allred, et al. v. Beigel and Evans

    240 Mo. App. 818 (Mo. Ct. App. 1949)   Cited 10 times
    In Allred v. Biegel, 240 Mo. App. 818; 219 S.W.2d 665 (1949), for example, swimmers in the Charition River discovered what they first thought was a log.

    The canoe was real property not personalty. Presumption that right of possession of Indian canoe or ancient boat found embedded in the soil is in the owner of the loqus in quo or fee owner, against everyone except the right owner. 170 American Law Reports, p. 708; State ex rel. Scott v. Buzard, 144 S.W.2d 847; Ferguson v. Ray, supra; Goddard v. Winchell, supra; Foster v. Fidelity Safe Deposit Co., supra. Plaintiffs' Exhibit A (Tr. pp. 16a, 16b.) an affidavit claimed by appellants to be a bill of sale dated August 18, 1947, from John and Andy Haney to the canoe for $2.00 was properly excluded as evidence by the trial court.