## Facts

- A water company owned the freehold of land covered by the Minster Pool in Lichfield and controlled access to and work performed on the pool.
- The company hired Sharman, a laborer, to help clean out the pool.
- While working, Sharman found two gold rings embedded in mud at the bottom of the pool.
- The company demanded the rings; Sharman refused and delivered them to police to locate the true owner.
- No true owner was found; police returned the rings to Sharman.
- There was no express agreement requiring employees to surrender items found during the work.
- The company sued in detinue to recover the rings (or their value) and damages for detention.

## Issues

1. Whether the owner/occupier of private land with de facto possession and exclusive control has a better right to possess chattels found in or under the land than the finder, even if the landowner was unaware of the chattels.
2. Whether the absence of a special contract about found items allows an employee-finder to keep items found during employment against the landowner.

## Decision

- The Queen’s Bench Division reversed the county court and entered judgment for the water company.
- The landowner had the superior right to possess the rings as against the finder, subject to any claim by the true owner.
- The court treated the company’s possession and control of the pool and its bed as giving it prior possession of items in and under the land.

## Legal Principles

- Possession of land generally carries possession of things attached to, in, or under the land, and sometimes things upon it.
- Where a chattel is found upon or under private land owned by a person with real de facto possession and exclusive control, the law presumes the chattel is in the landowner’s possession, giving the landowner a better right than the finder.
- Cases granting finders superior rights are distinguished where the locus is open to the public or not under the occupier’s exclusive control.
- A landowner’s manifested intention to exclude others from interference with the premises supports the presumption that objects found on the premises are already in the landowner’s possession.
- The rule applies regardless of whether the finder is an employee or a stranger; an employee’s discovery while acting under the owner’s direction does not defeat the owner’s prior possessory claim.

## Conclusion

A landowner exercising de facto possession and exclusive control over private premises has the superior possessory right to chattels found in or under that land against a subsequent finder, even without prior knowledge of the chattel and absent an express contract requiring surrender of found items.


S. Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman, [1896] 2 Q.B. 44 (Q.B.D.)