Supreme Court of Arkansas.
Joe TERRY and David Lee Stocks
v.
A.D. LOCK, Lock Hospitality, Inc., Greg Entler, John Doe I, John Doe II, and
Jan. 25, 2001.
RAY THORNTON, Justice.
On February 1, 1999, appellants, Joe Terry and David Stocks, were preparing the Best Western
appellant Stocks. The box was filled with old, dry and dusty currency in varying
appellants contacted the Conway Police Department and informed them of the discovery. The
investigating officer contacted Mr. Lock, and the money was counted. The face value of the
currency was determined to be $38,310.00.
Appellants filed a complaint in Faulkner County Chancery Court, asserting that the currency
value in excess of the totality of its denominations as collector’s funds.” Appellants sought a
temporary restraining order and an injunction, directing appellees to refrain from spending or
sought an order finding that appellees were holding the money in trust for appellants.
On the day the complaint was filed, the chancery court entered a temporary restraining order
requiring appellees to deposit the found money with the registry of the court. On February 9,
1999, Mr. Lock and Lock Hospitality, Inc., filed their answer. Appellees raised the defenses of
estoppel, laches, failure of consideration, and fraud in their answer. Eventually, all of the named
The remaining issue for our review is whether the chancellor was clearly erroneous in
characterizing the found money as “mislaid” property and consequently that the interest of Lock
[1][2][3][4][5] In their first point on appeal, appellants argue that the trial court was wholly
without subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues involved in this case. We have
previously stated that parties may not consent to a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction where no
Copr. © West 2002 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
Copr. © West 2002 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
property is whether the owner parted with the possession of the property intentionally, casually
or involuntarily; only in the latter contingency may it be lost property. Property is not “lost”
unless the owner parts with it involuntarily and unintentionally, and does not, at any time
thereafter, know where to find it. A loss is always involuntary; there can be no intent to part
with the ownership of lost property.
1 AM.JUR.2d Abandoned, Lost, Etc., Property ß 4 (1994); see also Benjamin, supra; Ritz v.
Selma United Methodist Church, 467 N.W.2d 266 (Iowa 1991); Jackson, supra.
The finder of lost property does not acquire absolute ownership, but acquires such property
interest or right as will enable him to keep it against all the world but the rightful owner. This
determination of the question of whether it was lost or only mislaid. But where articles are
accidentally dropped in any public place, public thoroughfare, or street, they are lost in the legal
sense. In short, property will not be considered to have been lost unless the circumstances are
such that, considering the place where, and the conditions under which, it is found, there is an
inference that it was left there unintentionally.
The right of possession, as against all except the true owner, is in the owner or occupant of the
premises where the property is discovered, for mislaid property is presumed to have been left in
the custody of the owner or occupier of the premises upon which it is found. The result is that
the proprietor of the premises is entitled to retain possession of the thing, pending a search by
him to discover the owner, or during such time as the owner may be considered to be engaged in
everyone but the true owner, the owner of such premises has the duty to defend his custody and
possession of the mislaid property, and he is absolutely liable for a misdelivery.
1 AM.JUR.2d Abandoned, Lost, Etc., Property ß 24 (1994); see also Benjamin, supra; Ritz,
supra; Schley, supra.
D. Treasure trove
Copr. © West 2002 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
Benjamin, supra. After reaching this conclusion, the court held “because the money discovered
by Benjamin was properly found to be mislaid property, it belongs to the owner of the premises
where it was found.” Id. The circumstances in Benjamin are similar to those now before us, and
we are persuaded that the reasoning of the Iowa court was sound.
The Oregon Supreme Court has also considered a case involving facts similar to the case now on
review before this court. In Jackson, supra., Mrs. Jackson, while working as a chamber maid at
Arthur Hotel, discovered $800 concealed under the paper lining of a dresser drawer. Id. The
court observed that “from the manner in which the bills in the instant case were carefully
concealed beneath the paper lining of the drawer, it must be presumed that the concealment was
effected intentionally and deliberately. The bills, therefore, cannot be regarded as abandoned
take them into his possession and to hold them as a gratuitous bailee for the true owner.
Jackson, supra.
The case now before us presents circumstances similar to those upon which Benjamin and
Jackson were decided. The trial court found that the original owner of the $38,310.00 acted
intentionally in concealing his property. The trial court also recognized that the found property
pursuant to Arkansas’ “Unclaimed Property Act,” Ark.Code Ann. ß 18-28-101, et.seq., the State
might have asserted an interest in the money in controversy in this case, but did not do so.
Affirmed.
END OF DOCUMENT
Copr. © West 2002 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
property is whether the owner parted with the possession of the property intentionally, casually
or involuntarily; only in the latter contingency may it be lost property. Property is not “lost”
unless the owner parts with it involuntarily and unintentionally, and does not, at any time
thereafter, know where to find it. A loss is always involuntary; there can be no intent to part
with the ownership of lost property.
1 AM.JUR.2d Abandoned, Lost, Etc., Property ß 4 (1994); see also Benjamin, supra; Ritz v.
Selma United Methodist Church, 467 N.W.2d 266 (Iowa 1991); Jackson, supra.
The finder of lost property does not acquire absolute ownership, but acquires such property
interest or right as will enable him to keep it against all the world but the rightful owner. This
determination of the question of whether it was lost or only mislaid. But where articles are
accidentally dropped in any public place, public thoroughfare, or street, they are lost in the legal
sense. In short, property will not be considered to have been lost unless the circumstances are
such that, considering the place where, and the conditions under which, it is found, there is an
inference that it was left there unintentionally.
The right of possession, as against all except the true owner, is in the owner or occupant of the
premises where the property is discovered, for mislaid property is presumed to have been left in
the custody of the owner or occupier of the premises upon which it is found. The result is that
the proprietor of the premises is entitled to retain possession of the thing, pending a search by
him to discover the owner, or during such time as the owner may be considered to be engaged in
everyone but the true owner, the owner of such premises has the duty to defend his custody and
possession of the mislaid property, and he is absolutely liable for a misdelivery.
1 AM.JUR.2d Abandoned, Lost, Etc., Property ß 24 (1994); see also Benjamin, supra; Ritz,
supra; Schley, supra.
D. Treasure trove
Copr. © West 2002 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
Benjamin, supra. After reaching this conclusion, the court held “because the money discovered
by Benjamin was properly found to be mislaid property, it belongs to the owner of the premises
where it was found.” Id. The circumstances in Benjamin are similar to those now before us, and
we are persuaded that the reasoning of the Iowa court was sound.
The Oregon Supreme Court has also considered a case involving facts similar to the case now on
review before this court. In Jackson, supra., Mrs. Jackson, while working as a chamber maid at
Arthur Hotel, discovered $800 concealed under the paper lining of a dresser drawer. Id. The
court observed that “from the manner in which the bills in the instant case were carefully
concealed beneath the paper lining of the drawer, it must be presumed that the concealment was
effected intentionally and deliberately. The bills, therefore, cannot be regarded as abandoned
take them into his possession and to hold them as a gratuitous bailee for the true owner.
Jackson, supra.
The case now before us presents circumstances similar to those upon which Benjamin and
Jackson were decided. The trial court found that the original owner of the $38,310.00 acted
intentionally in concealing his property. The trial court also recognized that the found property
pursuant to Arkansas’ “Unclaimed Property Act,” Ark.Code Ann. ß 18-28-101, et.seq., the State
might have asserted an interest in the money in controversy in this case, but did not do so.
Affirmed.
END OF DOCUMENT