Facts
The defendant, Major Hugh E. E. Peel, owned Gwernhaylod House in Overton-on-Dee, Shropshire. It was requisitioned for military use not long after the Second World War began since he purchased it in December 1938 but did not move in. The complainant, Lance-Corporal Duncan Hannah of the Royal Artillery, stayed at the residence in August 1940 while on military duty. LCpl Hannah discovered a brooch on top of a window frame when he was there.

Based on its filthy, cobwebby condition, the brooch has been there for a long time. Following advice from his commanding officer, LCpl Hannah turned the item over to the police. The police gave Major Peel the brooch in August 1942 when no one claimed it. Afterwards, Peel sold it for 66. LCpl Maj Peel was requested for this cash by Hannah. Peel gave Hannah a prize, but he declined and preferred the brooch. Maj. Peel claimed ownership of the brooch since he owned the structure where it was discovered. LCpl Hannah filed the lawsuit to contest this.

Issues

1. Does the plaintiff have a legal claim against the defendant, who owned the home where the brooch was discovered but never lived there, for locating the brooch?
2. Who is the rightful owner of the brooch?
3. If an object is discovered on real estate, but the owner has never lived there, does that thing belong to them or does it belong to the person who discovered it while renting the space?
   

Law
Even when the items are not in the possession of anybody else, a landowner owns anything attached to or buried beneath the property, but not necessarily anything lying on the surface. Plaintiff's finding was defendable against all persons other than the legal owner since the defendant was never really present in the residence.

Analysis
The Court recalls a similar instance in which the plaintiff discovered cash on the floor of the defendant's store, and the defendant refused to give the plaintiff the cash because the rightful owner could not be determined. In that case, the Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff without distinguishing whether it had been discovered at a store or the defendant's residence. Said that the plaintiff was entitled to the money since the defendant was not the rightful owner and was unaware of its existence.

This last case, which is notable because it was a business, has been overruled by some precedent. This should not be the case in any case. In rare circumstances, the Court has held that items found on a landowner's property belong to the owner. On this matter, there is no definite authority. However, the brooch was misplaced before being discovered by the plaintiff.

Neither the brooch nor the property was physically in the defendant's possession, and the defendant was unaware of the brooch. As a result, the plaintiff is the legitimate owner. When a lost item is discovered on real property, the owner has no right to claim it unless he is in actual possession and is aware of the object's presence. Yes. Plaintiff receives 66 pounds in payment for the brooch.

The first rule of law is stated in the case of South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman, infra. It states that as long as the property owner has control over the property, a person who finds an object while working for the owner finds it for the owner and not for himself. The Court must choose this rule.

Since the defendant, in this instance, never truly lived there, and he does not possess all of the objects found loose on his land, the Court decided not to apply this rule in this case. The Court applies the alternative legal principle in Bridges v. Hawkesworth, ibid, in the present instance. Since the defendant had never lived there, he or she was not entitled to claim previous possession of the brooch. In this case, the plaintiff's actions were praiseworthy.

The brooch was "lost" in the sense that the word is frequently used, and the plaintiff "found" the brooch in the sense that finding is often used. The original owner of the brooch was informed when it was recovered, but they have never been able to track them down. The Court rules that Bridges v. Hawkesworth, ibid, applies and that the plaintiff should get a judgment for 66 pounds.

Conclusion
The important thing was that even though the defendant never lived there, the plaintiff gave him a chance to claim the brooch. Additionally, it should be noted that the plaintiff did not trespass to discover the brooch. The Court carefully considers the evidence, drawing. Numerous comparisons and distinctions.

The more contentious Bridges v. Hawkesworth decision is considered after the Armoury v. Delamire ruling. In the latter instance, it is stated that the "finders' keepers except to the true owner" rule applies regardless of where the object is located. The third example, however, is at odds with the first two. In South Staffordshire

Water Co. v. Sharman, it was determined that the finder did not receive the rings since they were a piece of the real estate, as it were (see. Lord of the Rings). The rings were discovered embedded in some muck at the bottom of a pool. There was no dissenting opinion concerning the case.

References
Internet Sources

• https://lawschool.mikeshecket.com/property/hannahvpeel.htm
• https://courtroomcast.lexisnexis.com/acf_cases/9278-hannah-v-peel

Journals And Articles

• https://www.scribd.com/document/106882677/Hannah-v-Peel-1945-1945-K-B-509#
• https://www.proquest.com/docview/1301254786
• https://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/gvetter/classes/PropertyFall2012/Property_Fall2012_Module2.pdf

Award Winning Article Is Written By: Mr.Kartik Tripathi

Authentication No: JU353012404452-13-0623