Keron v. Cashman - 1896 N.J. Super. LEXIS 226, 33 A. 1055

Rule:

The peculiarity of the present case is that the intention or state of mind necessary to constitute the finder must relate to the lost money inclosed within a lost stocking, and not to the lost stocking itself, in the condition when first found; and, under the circumstances established by the evidence, in this case, the finder of the lost stocking was not, by reason of such finding, the legal finder of the lost money within the stocking.

Facts:

The bill of interpleader, in this case, was filed by John Keron the stakeholder or custodian of lost money and has been paid into court, to abide by the decision of the controversy between the defendants William Cashman and others as to their respective rights in the fund.

One of several boys, all the defendants, playing along a railroad track picked up an old stocking in which something was tied, and, after he had swung it about in play for a time, a second one of the boys snatched it, or, it having been thrown by the finder, the second boy picked it up, and began striking the other boys with it. In this way it passed from one to another, and, finally, while the second boy was swinging it, it broke open, and money was found therein, all then examining it together. A division of the money among the defendants was proposed, and partially carried out, but, being interrupted, the boys went home, and all of the money was on that evening given to the father of two of the boys, named Fox, who, on the next day, put it into the possession of the complainant, the chief of police to discover the owner. This effort, though made with all diligence, has failed. 

Issue:

Should the lost money be treated as legally found by the defendants?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court held that this common possession arose from the fact that the old stocking which contained the money and other articles was, at the time the stocking burst open, in actual use by all the defendants as a plaything, and for the purpose of play only. The stocking itself, in the condition in which it was found, was not, upon viewing of the evidence, treated either by the boy who first picked it up or by any of the others as an article over which any ownership or possession was intended to be asserted for the purpose of examining or appropriating its contents. The court then held that despite efforts to find its true owners was unveiled of, the money belonged to all the defendants in common.