Facts: P believed they were in possession of a valuable stamp collection. Later they saw
an advertisement for the sale of their stamps by Ganter. D stated he found the stamps in a
dresser he had purchased for thirty dollars in a used furniture store. D refused to return
the stamps to P and they filed suit in replevin. Trial court found for P.
Holding: Affirmed. The adage “finder’s keepers, loser’s weepers” is not a sufficient
– Isaack and Armory have well-established that a finder has property rights over all but
the rightful owner. Generally, it may be said that the finder of lost property holds it as a
bailee for the lost owner.
To allow a “finders keepers’ regime would:
– force property owners to horde their property, taking away many of the freedoms
we enjoy in an organized society
– cause people otherwise considered thieves to take control over other people’s
– undermine the very idea of a “social contract” that men living in the state of
nature sought to avoid by developing laws and property rights in the first place
We have located some similar legal questions and legal question categories. Check out these challenging questions that askquestions about Property Law Cases and are similar to What were the facts and holdings in the case Ganter v. Kapiloff?. Also, we have included a list of some of our more popular legal question categories. These categories are based on what everyone is asking and answering.