法律英语case

• Who has superior title to lost property that is found on land owned by another?
Definition of • One modern textbook on property law states: is asked propertyWhen a laymanlikely to to define “property”, he is
• 下面我们来简要分析一下无主物的所有权取 （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。
Two reasons: • (1) it confuses “property” with the various subjects of “property”. • (2) it fails to recognize that even the subjects of property may be intangible.
Legal
单佳妮 陈亦颖 朱红丹
• Peel (D) bought a home in 1938 but never moved in. In 1940, during World War II, Peel’s home was used by the military. Hannah (P) was a lancecorporal in the Royal Artillery stationed in the house. Hannah found a brooch on a windowsill in a room in a remote part of the house that was being used as a sickbay. • Hannah gave the brooch to the police. In 1942 the police gave it to Peel who then sold it for 66 pounds. There was no evidence that Peel knew of the existence of the brooch before Hannah discovered it. Hannah sued to regain possession of the brooch or its value and Peel in turn asserted that he had superior title because the brooch was found on his property.
• 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）
ห้องสมุดไป่ตู้
• 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（Abandoned, lost or mislaid property goes to Landowner if found in a private home）。
say that “property” is something tangible “owned” by a natural person (or persons) a corporation, or a unit of government. But such a response is inaccurate from a lawyer’s viewpoint for at least two reasons.