Kincaid v. Eaton

98 Mass. 139
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1867
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 98 Mass. 139 (Kincaid v. Eaton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kincaid v. Eaton, 98 Mass. 139 (Mass. 1867).

Opinion

Wells, J.

Upon the facts of this case, and the authorities cited (McAvoy v. Medina, 11 Allen, 548; Lawrence v. The State, 1 Humph. 228; Wentworth v. Day, 3 Met. 354; Symmes v. Frazier, 6 Mass. 345,) the plaintiff did not come into possession of the pocket-book in such manner as to give him the special property therein which belongs to the finder of an article lost by the owner. By the terms of the advertisement the reward could be earned only by the return of the pocket-book by one who had entitled himself to those rights by finding. To discover an article voluntarily laid down by the owner within a banldng house, and upon a desk provided for the use of such persons having business there, is not the finding of a lost article. The occupants of the banking house, and not the plaintiff, were the proper depositaries of an article so left. The plaintiff has not established a legal right to the reward according to the terms by which it was offered, and therefore cannot retain his verdict.

Exceptions sustained.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Saritejdiam, Inc. v. Excess Insurance
971 F.2d 910 (Second Circuit, 1992)
Saritejdiam, Inc. v. Excess Insurance Company, Ltd.
971 F.2d 910 (Second Circuit, 1992)
Dolitsky v. Dollar Savings Bank
203 Misc. 262 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1952)
Jackson v. Steinberg
200 P.2d 376 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1948)
Foulke v. New York Consolidated Railroad
127 N.E. 237 (New York Court of Appeals, 1920)
Foster v. Fidelity Safe Deposit Co.
174 S.W. 376 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1915)
Foster v. Fidelity Safe Deposit Co.
145 S.W. 139 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1912)
Roberson v. Ellis
114 P. 100 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1911)
Kuykendall v. Fisher
8 L.R.A.N.S. 94 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1906)
Ferguson v. Ray
77 P. 600 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1904)
Hoagland v. Forest Park Highlands Amusement Co.
70 S.W. 878 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1902)
Loucks v. Gallogly
1 Misc. 22 (Albany City Court, 1892)
Livermore v. White
74 Me. 452 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1883)
Durfee v. Jones
11 R.I. 588 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1877)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
98 Mass. 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kincaid-v-eaton-mass-1867.