## Facts

- Major Hugh E. E. Peel purchased a house in Shropshire in 1938 but never occupied or took physical possession of it.
- During World War II, the government requisitioned the house for military use; Peel remained the freehold owner and received compensation.
- Lance-Corporal Duncan Hannah, billeted in the house, found a brooch in 1940 while adjusting blackout curtains; it was loose in a crevice atop a window frame and covered with dirt and cobwebs.
- After realizing it might be valuable, Hannah reported the find through his commanding officer and delivered it to the police, who attempted to locate the true owner.
- When no true owner was found, the police delivered the brooch to Peel as landowner; Peel sold it for £66.
- Hannah demanded return of the brooch or its value; Peel refused (offering only a reward), and Hannah sued in trover/detinue for return or value and damages for detention.

## Issues

1. Whether a landowner who has never occupied or taken physical possession of premises has a superior right to a lost chattel lying loose and unattached on the premises over a finder lawfully present.
2. Whether the finder’s possessory title to the brooch was better than the non-occupying landowner’s claim.

## Decision

- Judgment was entered for Hannah.
- The court held that Hannah, as finder, had a right to possess the brooch against all persons except the true owner.
- Peel, despite owning the freehold, had no better possessory claim because he neither occupied the premises nor had prior possession or knowledge of the brooch.
- Damages were awarded in the amount of £66, representing the value Peel obtained by selling the brooch.

## Legal Principles

- A finder of a lost chattel acquires a possessory right superior to all but the true owner.
- A landowner does not automatically have a superior right to all chattels found on the land; priority depends materially on occupation, control, and prior possession.
- Where the item is lost and lies loose and unattached (rather than embedded in or part of the land), the dispute is governed by finders’ possessory rules, not doctrines favoring ownership of fixtures or sub-surface objects.
- A non-occupying owner who has not taken physical possession of premises and lacked knowledge of the chattel generally cannot displace the lawful finder’s possessory title.

## Conclusion

The court awarded possession (and the chattel’s value) to the lawful finder because the brooch was a lost, unattached object and the landowner—who never occupied or controlled the premises—could not show prior possession or a superior possessory right against the finder, absent the true owner.


Hannah v. Peel, [1945] 1 K.B. 509 (K.B. 1945)