## Facts

- Bridges, a travelling salesman, visited Hawkesworth’s retail shop.
- As Bridges was leaving, he found a parcel lying on the shop floor.
- The parcel contained banknotes totaling about £65.
- Bridges immediately informed a shopman and asked Hawkesworth to keep the notes until the true owner appeared.
- Hawkesworth advertised for the owner; no one claimed the notes for three years.
- Bridges demanded return of the notes, offering to pay advertising costs and indemnify Hawkesworth if the owner later appeared; Hawkesworth refused, claiming the notes.
- The county court found Bridges did not intend to abandon any title by handing the notes to Hawkesworth but still entered judgment for Hawkesworth.
- Bridges appealed to the Queen’s Bench.

## Issues

1. Whether a shop occupier has a superior right to lost banknotes found on the shop floor as against the customer who found them.
2. Whether the finder’s possessory title prevails absent evidence of the occupier’s prior possession, control, or other circumstances displacing the finder’s claim.

## Decision

- The Queen’s Bench reversed the county court and entered judgment for Bridges.
- The court held the mere fact the notes were found inside the shop did not give Hawkesworth a better right than the finder.
- The court concluded no facts took the case outside the general rule that a finder of lost property has rights good against all except the true owner.
- Hawkesworth’s custody and advertising efforts were treated as acts done on behalf of Bridges; Bridges’ title remained effective.
- Judgment was entered for Bridges for £50 (as claimed in the proceeding) plus costs of the appeal.

## Legal Principles

- A finder of lost property acquires a possessory title good against all persons except the true owner.
- The occupier of premises does not gain a superior right merely because lost property is found on the premises’ surface.
- An occupier’s claim requires special circumstances such as prior possession/control of the chattel, or facts showing the item was already within the occupier’s possession rather than merely lost on the premises.
- When the finder entrusts the item to another for safekeeping and to locate the owner, the finder does not lose title absent intent to abandon; the custodian’s holding may be derivative (as agent or bailee for the finder).

## Conclusion

The court held that banknotes found lost on a shop floor belonged, as against the shopkeeper, to the customer who found them, because the shopkeeper had no prior possession or other circumstances displacing the general rule favoring the finder over all but the true owner.


Bridges v. Hawkesworth, 21 L.J.Q.B. 75 (Q.B. 1851)