Armory v. Delamirie (1722)

IRAC Summary

Issue: The primary issue in Armory v. Delamirie (1722) is whether the finder of a jewel (the plaintiff) has the right to damages when the jewel is not returned by the person (the defendant) who took it to appraise it, and whether the plaintiff is entitled to the highest value the jewel could have been appraised at due to the defendant’s failure to return it.

Rule: The established rule from this case is that a finder of a lost item has a better right to the possession of that item than anyone other than the true owner. Furthermore, if the person in possession of the found item refuses to return it, they are liable for the full value of the item. If the exact value cannot be determined due to the defendant’s actions, the highest possible value is assumed in favor of the plaintiff.

Application: In Armory v. Delamirie, a chimney sweep’s boy found a jewel and brought it to a goldsmith (Delamirie) for valuation. Delamirie’s apprentice removed the stones and offered a price for the empty setting. When the chimney sweep’s boy rejected the offer and asked for the stones back, the goldsmith refused to return them. Without the stones, it was impossible to determine the exact value of the jewel. The court applied the rule in favor of the chimney sweep’s boy, assuming the highest value of the jewel as the damages, given the defendant’s refusal to return it or provide evidence of its lower value.

Conclusion: The court concluded that the plaintiff, as the finder of the jewel, had rights to it above all others except the rightful owner. Delamirie, by failing to return the jewel, was liable to compensate the plaintiff at the highest estimated value of the jewel.

Detailed IRAC Outline

Issue: The more detailed issue revolves around the rights of a finder of lost property against the world at large and the measure of damages to be awarded when the property is wrongfully withheld and cannot be specifically valued due to the actions of the defendant.

1. A finder of a lost item has a superior claim to that item over anyone other than the true owner.
2. If the person who obtains the item from the finder refuses to return it, they are liable for damages.
3. When the exact value cannot be determined due to the defendant’s actions, the law assumes the highest possible value to estimate damages.

1. The plaintiff, the chimney sweep’s boy, legally found the jewel, giving him better rights to its possession than Delamirie, who had no ownership claim.
2. Delamirie’s refusal to return the stones from the setting after the jewel was brought in for appraisal constituted wrongful withholding.
3. By not returning the stones, Delamirie prevented the assessment of their value; there was no way to determine their worth accurately.
4. The court applied the rule by shifting the burden of proof to Delamirie, who failed to provide evidence of the jewel’s lower value.
5. The apprentice’s action of removing the stones and not returning them resulted in an assumption of the highest value for damages, to deter wrongful withholding and to compensate the finder for the loss.

The decision in Armory v. Delamirie affirmed the finder’s rights over the lost property against all but the true owner and established a clear principle for assessing damages when the exact value of wrongfully withheld property cannot be determined. The plaintiff was entitled to damages based on the highest value that the stones could have been, as Delamirie provided no evidence to the contrary. This outcome reinforces the protection of property rights and serves as a deterrent against wrongful detention of property.

Discover more from Legal Three

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading