在美国财产法上有五种不同形态的无主物:丢失物（lost property）,错放物（Mislaid）,抛弃物（Abandoned
property）,无主财宝（Treasure trove）和沉船（Shipwrecks）。对以上几种无主物的占有,美国法律一般认为,丢失或错放财物的所有权仍属于财产的原主人（An
owner of property does not lose title by losing his property）。但是,除了真正的物主（true
owner）之外,发现丢失财物者对该财物的占有优先于其他任何人（Finder is entitled to possession
against all the world except the owner）,我们在第一提到的Armory v. Delamirie案就是这方面的典型例子。
下面我们来简要分析一下无主物的所有权取得（Acquisition by Find）中的法律关系:
A. 真实物主和发现者的关系（True Owner v. Finder）
1. 丢失或错放财物的所有权仍属于财产的原主人,没有“finders keepers”这样的说法。（Lost or mislaid
property goes back to True Owner）。
2. 抛弃物归发现者所有（Abandoned property goes to Finder）,另外,抛弃物用拉丁文表示为"res
derelictae",这在原版的财产法著作中经常看到。
B. 发现者和土地所有者的关系（Finder v. Landowner）
1. 非法入侵他人领地者,发现丢失物,不可取得对丢失物的占有权,丢失物归现场土地的所有人占有（Property always
goes to Landowner if Finder is trespassing）。
2. 在私人场所发现无主物,私人场所的所有人而非发现人取得占有权（Abandoned, lost or mislaid
property goes to Landowner if found in a private home）。
3. 在向社会开发的领地上发现丢失物或遗忘物,发现才取得占有权（Abandoned or lost item goes
to Finder if found in an area open to the public）。
4. 在向社会开发的领地上发现错放物,领地所有人取得占有权（Mislaid item goes to Landowner
if found in an area open to the public）。
5. 家佣在其被雇佣工作期间发现丢失物,主人取得占有权（servant finds for his master）。
其次,在美国,关于无主物的占有取得还有不少政策上的考虑,详情如下:
Policy concern: need some rule but does it have to be finder
get property and prior possessor prevails？ Could be all goes
to the government or whoever needs/values it most. Why does
it have to be winner take all, could you split it. Justifications
for protecting prior possessor's rights are:
1） it preserves law and order, cuts down on succession of theft
or frequent change over of possession,
2） rewards those who possess and maintain property, puts land
to good use,
3） allows for entrusting of goods, bailment, which is an efficient
practice
4）promotes honesty by protecting a finder who reports a find
5） reward labor in returning a useful item to society
6） protects owner without documentation or proof of ownership
7） prior possessors expect to prevail so reinforces idea that
law is just
美国财产法中有关无主物占有问题的几个案例,几个热心的网友帮忙做了翻译,供参考。
1. Eads v. Brazelton （1861）； briefed 8/27/94
Facts: AA Brazelton found the wrecked steamboat
America sunken in the Mississippi, and placed a bouy over it,
and to marked a fix on some nearby trees, intending to return
the next morning to recover the large amount of lead abandoned
therein. However, AA was unable to return during the next several
months and BB was able to find the wreck on his own, and commence
lifting the lead from it. AA. sued for recovery of his property
in the wreck, and to obtain compensation for the lead that BB
removed.
Issue: Were AA's efforts （marking the fix, placing
the bouy） sufficient to vest in him property rights for the
abandoned wreck？
Holding: No. "The occupation or possession
of property lost, abandoned, or without an owner must depend
on an actual taking of the property with an intent to reduce
it to possession".
Reasoning: The court reasoned that AA's actions
were not sufficient to warn away intruders, and so he had not
effectively taken possession of the wreck. Placing a boat there,
and making persistent efforts to raise the lead, would have
been acts of possession.
Notes: "the law does not clothe mere discovery
with the exclusive right to the discovered property because
such a rule would provide little encouragement to the discoverer
to pursue the often strenuous task of actually retrieving the
property……".
网友lawdent译:
1. Eads v. Brazelton （1861）； briefed 8/27/94（摘要）
AA 布拉泽登在密西西比河中发现美国轮船的沉船遗骸,他在上面放置了浮标,在附近的树上也作了固定标记,打算第二天早上返回那里打捞沉没河底的石墨。但是,AA几个月内都没能回去,而BB凭借一己之力也找到了遗骸,开始打捞石墨。AA起诉请求保护其对于沉船遗骸的财产权,并就BB取走的石墨请求赔偿。
问题: 是否AA的努力（设置浮标与固定标记）足可以使沉船遗骸的财产权归其所有？
裁定:否,占有或拥有被丢失或被抛弃的财产或者无主财产,要看是否已经实际取得该财产,并具备了所有意图。
推理:法庭认为,AA的行为不足以产生告诫入侵者不得靠近的作用,所以他尚未有效占有该遗骸。泊船该处并持续努力打捞石墨,才是占有行为。
注:“法律不因发现人的单纯发现行为就赋予其对于所发现之财产享有独占权利,因为这样的规则不能激励他继续艰辛工作,真正找回该财产……”。
2.Armory v. Delamirie （1722）； briefed 8/28/94
Facts: AA found a jewel and took it to BB's goldsmith
shop where BB's apprentice removed the jewel under the pretense
of weighing it, and informed BB of its weight. Then BB offered
the AA money for it, but the AA refused and insisted upon the
return of the jewel, at which time the apprentice returned the
empty setting without the jewel in it to the AA .
Issue: Does AA , in finding the jewel, have sufficient
property right in it to keep it from the BB？
Holding: Yes. A finder obtains exclusive property
rights of his find against all others except the rightful owner.
Reasoning: Although unstated, I believe the reasoning
to be that if the finder was not protected by the right to exclude
others from taking his find, simply because it was previously
unowned, that there would be no incentive to the discoverer
to bring the found item to a socially useful purpose.
Note: The court awarded the AA damages amounting
to the value of the finest jewel that could possibly be mounted
in such an arrangement, because BB was unable to produce the
actual jewel for return to the AA .
网友[devil]-steven译:
AA捡到了一块珠宝并把它卖给了BB.在BB的珠宝店里,在假装给珠宝称重量的掩饰下,BB的学徒偷走了珠宝,但把珠宝的重量告诉BB.接着BB把珠宝款给了AA,但AA却拒绝收款并坚持索回珠宝,因此学徒将已取下珠宝的空壳给了AA
问题:在找到珠宝的情况下,AA有充分的财产权以要回珠宝吗？
观点:除了不能对抗真正的所有人,捡到者对该财产有排他性的财产权利
分析推理:虽然在这一点上没有明文表述,但我相信这样的分析:假如仅仅因为该财产以前归别人所有而不对捡到者的财产权利进行保护的话,那将无法鼓励财产发现者将其用于有益的社会目的
注释:因为AA不能拿出实在的珠宝返还给BB,法庭判AA有权获得损害赔偿,损害赔偿的价值应相当于 此类交易中所可能镶嵌的最好珠宝的价值。
3. Bridges v. Hawkesworth （1851）； briefed 8/28/94
Facts: AA , while leaving BB's shop, found a parcel
which had been lying on the BB's shop floor. When opened, it
was found that the parcel contained a stack of bank notes. AA
then requested that the BB retain the notes and return them
to the owner. After 3 years had passed, the owner had not claimed
the notes, and so AA requested that the BB turn over the notes
to AA . BB refused, and AA brought action to recover the notes
from BB.
Issue: Does the fact that the notes were found
inside the BB's shop give the BB the right to keep them from
AA , who is the finder？
Holding: No. The finder of a lost article is entitled
to it as against all parties except the real owner, even if
the discovery occurred on another's property.
Reasoning: The court cited Armory v. Delamirie
as authority for their holding. The court further reasoned that
since the notes were never in the custody of the BB, nor under
the protection of his house before they were found, he had no
responsibility for them and therefore could not have accrued
property in them before the finding by AA .
Notes: Armory v. Delamirie may have been interpreted
too broadly in this case, because Armory did not consider the
rights of the person in which the jewel was found.
网友qdwzl2002译
布里奇斯诉豪克斯伍兹:（1851）摘要8/28/94
事实:当aa离开bb的船时,在bb的船的地板上发现一个包裹。他打开包裹时发现里面时一叠银行票据。AA将票据交给BB保管以便返还失主。3年后,失主仍未要求票据权利,因而AA请求BB将票据返还给自己。BB拒绝,AA就返还票据一事对BB提起诉讼。
问题: 在BB的船上发现内有票据的包裹这一事实赋予BB获得将包裹从AA处取回保管的权利了吗？ 谁是发现者？
观点:遗失物的发现者有权对抗除物之所有者之外的所有人,即使这项发现发生在其他人的财产上。
理由: 法庭引用Armory v. Delamirie一案作为他们的权威依据。法庭给出的更充分的理由是:包裹从未被BB保管,在包裹被发现前也从未被BB保护,BB对包裹从未有责任因而在AA发现包裹前也自然未产生所有权。
注:Armory v. Delamirie的例子在此案中被运用的太广泛,因为Armory没考虑 发现宝石所在地所有人的权利。
4. South Stratforshire Water Co. v. Sharman（1896）
（England）； pg. 102； briefed 9/4/94
Facts: AA's owned a fee simple property on which
was a pool that they contracted with BB to clean. While cleaning
the pool, BB found 2 gold rings. AA demanded said rings from
BB, who instead turned them over to police to find the original
owner. When the owner was not found, police returned the rings
to BB, and AA sues to recover rings.
Issue: Did AA exercise compete control of the
property and everything in it and thus have the general right
to demand anything found in the pool by his employee？
Holding: Owners of non-public property obtain
presumed possession of items abandoned on their property when
they are found by persons acting on his behalf if the owners
actively control use of their property, and the things which
are on it or in it, by excluding unauthorized interference.
Reasoning: The court distinguished this case from
Bridges, where a parcel of bank notes was found on the floor
of a shop open to the public, by noting that the money in Bridges
was found in a walkway open to the public, and that the rings
were on non-public use property over which the owner intended
strict control of all things on or in his property. It was also
reasoned that to hold otherwise would encourage people to pocket
what they find on another's property.
Notes: In Pyle v. Springfield Marine Bank, a safe
deposit vault was deemed to be a private area, and so valuables
found on the floor belonged to the bank and not the finder.
In a similar case Parker v. British Airways, the opposite resulted
when a passenger found a bracelet in first class because, although
the airline executed a limited control over who came and went,
and what they could bring in, their control was not construed
to include controlling all articles on or in the plane.
网友逍遥译
4、South Stratforshire Water Co. v. Sharman（1896） （England）；
pg. 102； briefed 9/4/94
事实:AA 拥有一处有绝对处分权的地产,其上有一池塘,AA雇佣BB清理。在清理过程中,BB发现了2枚金戒指。AA要求BB交付戒指,BB却交给了警方以期找到失主。警方在没有找到失主之后将戒指还给了BB.AA由此向法院起诉,要求BB交还戒指。
问题:AA是否对该地产及其中的任何物品有绝对的控制权,并因此得对其雇员在池中找到的任何物品主张权利？
裁定:私有财产的所有者对代表其行为的人在其有效控制的财产之上发现的任何抛弃物得享有占有的权利,并且不受任何无授权的干涉。
理由:法庭区别了本案和Bridges.在Bridges中,一包银行纸币在一个对外营业的商店地上被发现。与该案中钱在公共走道上被发现不同,本案中的戒指是在私有地产上发现的,且所有者对其财产中及其上的所有物品均有严格的控制。另外,如果作出相反裁定,则会鼓励人们隐匿在他人财产上发现的物品。
注解:在In Pyle v. Springfield Marine Bank案中,一个保险库的拱顶被视为私人区域,所以在该处发现的贵重物品属于银行而不是发现者。在一个类似的案件Parker
v. British Airways中,对一个旅客在头等舱发现的一个手镯则作出了相反的处理,因为航空公司仅限于控制谁及带什么东西进入飞机,而不包括控制飞机上和飞机里的所有物品。
5. Hannah v. Peel （1945） English, Pg. 105, briefed
9/4/94
Facts: AA was a corporal working in a gov't requisitioned
house owned by BB, when he found a brooch that was covered in
cobwebs. BB offered AA a reward for the brooch, but AA turned
brooch over to police and obtained a receipt. When the owner
was not found after 2 yrs, the police returned to brooch to
the BB instead of the AA, and the BB sold it.
Issue: Did the BB own the brooch simply because
he owned the house, or should it belong to AA, the finder？
Holding: Possession becomes vested in the finder
against all but the rightful owner when the item is found by
a person who is not the agent of the owner of the property where
the item was found, and the owner does not actually physically
possess the property where the item was found.
Reasoning: The court likened this to Bridges and
decided that the owner of the house never physically possessed
the house, and never had knowledge of the brooch before it was
found. Thus, the owner did not necessarily have possession of
everything lying unattached on his property, specifically this
brooch.
Notes: 4. Bridges was also cited in Durfee v.
Jones where the owner of a safe had no knowledge or real possession
of money that was found by a person he had entrusted the safe
to for display. 5. In determining who "found" the
money in a lost sock, the court held that the "finding"
did not occur until the sock was broken open, and so all of
the boys present were joint finders.
（5. Hannah v. Peel （1945） English, Pg. 105, briefed
9/4/94）。
网友albert译:
事实:BB的房屋由政府征用,下士AA在该房工作时,发现1枚蛛网覆盖的胸针。BB为此奖励了AA.但是,AA
将胸针交给了警察并得到收条。两年后,无人认领,警察将胸针返还给BB而不是AA,BB将胸针卖了。
问题:BB只因其是房主就有权拥有胸针吗？还是这枚胸针属于发现者AA？
裁决:物由不享有物之代理权的人发现,发现者可以对抗物的所有人外的任何人,但不能对抗物之所有人,即使物之所有人在发现该物时没有占有该物。
推理:法庭将此比做桥并裁定房主从未亲自占有胸针,在胸针发现之前也从未得知此事。因此房主不一定拥有并非其财产附着物的任何物品,比如这胸针。
注:4.桥也在Durfee v. Jones 一案引用。保险箱的主人将保险箱委托展示,被他人发现其箱内有钱,保险箱的主人不知道或真正拥有该钱。5.在裁定谁“发现”了遗失的短袜中的钱时,法庭认为短袜破裂时才“发现”钱,因此在场的全部男孩为共同发现者。
6. McAvoy v. Medina （1866）, pg. 108； briefed 9/4/94
Facts: AA was a customer of a barber shop owned
by BB. AA found a wallet with money in it laying on the table
of the BB. BB. retained the money in hopes of finding the true
owner. AA claimed that as finder, he should be allowed possession,
since the owner was not found.
Issue: Was the wallet "lost" under the
general meaning in Bridges, allowing the finder to claim possession
against all but the true owner？
Holding: When an item of property is deliberately
placed by the owner on the premises of a shop owner and then
forgotten, it is not "lost" in the ordinary meaning
of the word, it is mislaid, and the shop owner retains possession
against all but the true owner, even if the shop owner is not
the finder.
Reasoning: The wallet was not dropped, and it
did not appear to be "lost" by negligence, but rather
it appeared that the true owner had intended to pick it back
up again but had forgotten. Placing the wallet on the table
would be an ordinary thing to do in a barber shop, and so the
barbershop owner should keep it until the customer that left
it returned.
网友ldman译:
6. McAvoy v. Medina （1866）, pg. 108； briefed 9/4/94
事实:ＡＡ是ＢＢ所有的一家理发店的顾客。ＡＡ在ＢＢ的桌子上发现一个装有钱的钱包。ＢＢ把钱留下来,希望能找到失主。ＡＡ声称是自己发现的钱包,钱包应归其所有,因为失主没有找到。
问题:钱包是否依照ＢＲＩＤＧＥＳ原则（什么东东啊？）的通常含义“已经丢失”,依据此原则可允许发现失物者对抗失主之外的所有人,主张拥有失物。
裁决:如果某物的所有者将其故意放在店主的场地,然后忘记拿走,该物并没有依据“丢失”这个词的通常含义而真正丢失,而只是被放错地方。店主拥有对抗除失主外的所有人保留此物所有权的权利,即使店主不是失物的发现者。
理由:钱包不是掉了,也不是因疏忽而“遗失”,,而是看来失主原打算再拿起来带走但忘记了。在理发店将钱包放在桌子上是很平常的事,因此理发店店主应保留钱包,直至遗忘钱包的顾客返回。
7. Schley v. Couch （1955）, pg. 109； briefed 9/4/94
Facts: Petitioner is he owner of a tract of land
on which stood a garage with a floor that was partially concrete,
and partially dirt. Petitioner hired respondent to lay concrete
over the dirt part of the garage floor. While digging in the
dirt part, the respondent found a jar of buried money that was
placed there 4 yrs prior by the previous owner. Both parties
claim possession against all but the true owner.
Issue: Was the jar of buried money "lost",
or a "treasure trove" （therefore entitling the finder
to possess it） or was it "mislaid" （therefore entitling
the property owner to possess it）。
Holding: The owner of the property on which buried
money which is found embedded in the soil under circumstances
that do not support the idea that the money was lost due to
neglect, carelessness or inadvertence, but rather which circumstances
suggest that the original owner intended to return to claim
the money, has the presumed right to possess the found money
against all but the original owner.
Reasoning: The Texas court rejected the British
notion of "treasure trove" （where the finder retains
possession）, and instead limited its analysis to whether the
money was lost or mislaid. They reasoned that the original owner
simply forgot where he had buried the money, and so judged the
landowner to be the presumed possessor.
网友lh125125
案例:原告有一块儿地,地上建有一个修配厂,修配厂的地面有一部分是水泥地面、另一部分是土的。原告雇佣被告将土的体面铺成水泥的。在挖地面的时候,被告发现一罐被这块地以前的主人在4年前埋在地下的钱。
原告和被告双方（除这块地原来的主人外）都声称自己拥有所有权。
问题:这罐钱实是丧失物、或无主物（这样的话税发现归谁所有）,还是错放物（归放置地的产权所有者所有）。
裁决:当这些钱是由于其主人故意埋在那里并有意图回来取,而不是由于疏忽、大意、或不经心丢在那里的情况下,埋藏地的产权所有者对这笔钱应该比其它任何人（这笔钱原来的真正主人除外）更有理由拥有所有权。
推理:德克萨斯法庭没有采用英国“无主埋藏物”的判案结论（那样的话应该归发现者所有）,而只是限定在遗失物和错置物两者之间进行分析判断,他们推理认为,原来的主人只是忘记把钱埋到哪里了,所以判定这笔钱归发现时土地的产权所有者所有。
网友fangmin1译:
7. Schley v. Couch （1955）, pg. 109； briefed 9/4/94
事实:原告是一片土地的所有者。在这片土地上有一间车库,车库的基底一部分铺了砖块,另一部分则是泥土地。原告雇佣被告欲将泥土部分铺成砖块。而在挖泥土部分基底的过程中,被告发现了一罐掩埋了四年之久,应归他人所有的钱币。于是,两人都认为自己是除真正所有人之外的财产拥有者。
问题:这罐埋藏的钱币是丢失物、无主埋藏物（应赋予发现者拥有）还是错放物（应赋予发现地的财产所有人/地主拥有）？
裁决:发现埋藏钱币的发现地的财产所有人/地主,被推定为拥有财产权而可以对抗除原所有权人以外的所有人,不是因为钱币的丢失是原财产所用人出于疏忽、大意或漫不经心这样一种观点,而是因为在此种情况下表明原所有人仍有意取回本属于自己的钱币。
理由:德克萨斯州法院驳回了British（普通法？）关于无主埋藏物归先占人的主张,去而代之是对钱币的划分限制在是丢失物还是错放物之间。他们（法官们）充分认为原财产所用人只是一时忘记埋藏的财物而已,因此判定土地所有者/地主为财产权利人