1
Chapter 47
Personal Property and Bailment
VI. Answers to Critical Legal Thinking Cases
47.1 Mislaid Property
The money was mislaid property. Mislaid property is property that is intentionally put into a certain place
and later forgotten. Mislaid property is presumed to have been left in the custody of the owner or occupier
of the premises upon which it is found. A finder of mislaid property acquires no ownership rights in it,
and, where such property is found upon another’s premises, the finder is required to turn it over to the
47.2 Bailment
No. A bailment was not created between Meaux and the Sisters of Charity. A bailee has the duty to
exercise ordinary care over the goods and is therefore responsible for the bailor’s goods. In contrast, a
lease is a transfer of interest in and possession of property for a prescribed period of time in exchange for
an agreed consideration called rent. The lessor does not have a duty to exercise care regarding the lessee’s
property stored on the premises. The lessor is therefore not responsible for the property of the lessee. As
between the owner of premises and the owner of personal property left in a locker on the premises when
exclusive possession thereof has not been delivered and control and dominion of the property is
47.3 Gift
Yes. Victor Gruen made a valid gift inter vivos of the Klimt painting to his son Michael. An inter vivos
gift requires that the donor intends to make an irrevocable present transfer of ownership. Here, Victor
intended to transfer ownership of the painting to Michael but to retain a life estate in it. Victor did transfer
Gruen, 68 N.Y.2d 48, 496 N.E.2d 869, 505 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1986 N.Y. Lexis 19366 (Court of Appeals of
New York)
47.4 Bailment
2
no delivery of the goods to Nationwide as a bailor, and Nationwide was not given exclusive possession
and control over the goods. Merritt merely leased a locker, locked the premises with his own lock and
key, and did not furnish a key to Nationwide. The court held that because there was no delivery of the
goods by Merritt to Nationwide, no bailment was created. Merritt v. Nationwide Warehouse Co., Ltd.,
47.5 Abandoned Property
No, Green and Vogel, the owners of the apartment building where Fuentes was shot and the $58,591 in
cash was found, have no legal claim to the money. Green and Vogel asserted that they were entitled to the
money because it was property that was abandoned on their premises. The court noted that it is true that
Green and Vogel were not entitled to the $58,591 found in Fuentes’ apartment under the theory of
abandonment. The court also held that Green and Vogel had no claim to the money as lost or misplaced
VII. Answers to Ethics Cases
47.6 Ethics Case
certificates and passbook and other bank accounts that he stored in his condominium for safekeeping. The
court held against Souders and awarded the stocks and passbook and other bank statements to the residual
legatees of Dr. Edwards’s estate. In answering the question of whether Souders acted ethically in this
47.7 Ethics Case
No, Red Roof Inns, Inc., is not liable for the alleged value of the jewelry contained in Nova Stylings
sample jewelry case, which was stolen from the Inn. In common law, an innkeeper is strictly liable for
3
of Section 36-402(b) in the guest’s room. The evidence showed that Red Roof Inn properly posted the
required notice in Ms. Ruston’s room. The evidence further showed that Ruston did not notify the hotel
clerk that Kulwin’s bag contained sample jewelry or give the clerk an itemized list of the property in the
bag. The court held that Red Roof Inns had complied with the requirements of the statute. Therefore, the