Ummm There is no page 18.
Sure there is...
Texas declines to recognize treasure trove,46 but this difference is more a matter of
nomenclature than a real legal difference from the general rule. The same court that
held that treasure trove did not apply in Texas also held that mislaid property, if not
claimed for a long enough period, would cease to be mislaid and would be considered
lost.47 Thus, money that was hidden recently would go to the locus owner, to
hold as bailee for the true owner, but money that had been hidden a long time would
go to the finder. The result is the same as in the other states, it is just that instead of
finds of mislaid money being recognized as treasure trove if they have “the thought
of antiquity,” they are treated as lost instead. In both cases – whether it is called treasure
trove or whether it is called lost property – the money goes to the finder.
Two states have chosen a different rule, which gives the treasure trove to the locus
owner. These states are Tennessee 48 and Idaho.49 The rationale behind this different
rule is that otherwise trespassers would be rewarded. However, the same object
could be achieved by giving treasure trove to the finder, but ruling that the finder
loses if the finder is a trespasser. The problem of the trespassing finder will be discussed
further below.
There has been only one exception to the rule of United States courts refusing to
vest the right to treasure trove in the sovereign. This was a trial court in
Pennsylvania, which in 1948 ruled that the common law of treasure trove did not
vest the right to treasure trove in the finder, but in the sovereign, and awarded a find
of $92,800 in currency to the state.50 The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, however,
reversed this decision and held that it was not yet determined as to whether the law
of treasure trove was part of the law of Pennsylvania.51
Michigan declines to adopt treasure trove into its common law, and instead handles
finds of money through its statutory scheme.52
Approximately half of the states have statutes prescribing the disposition of lost
property.53 Under these statutes, the finder must inform the police of the find and
18
46 See Schley v. Couch, 284 S.W.2d 333, 335 (Tex. 1955).
47 Cf. id. at 336 (holding that the length of time that an object is hidden will determine
whether it is mislaid or lost). This holding, which is implicit in the majority opinion, is
brought out into full clarity in the concurrence. See id. at 338 (Calvert, J., concurring).
48 See Morgan v. Wiser, 711 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985).
49 See Corliss v. Wenner, 34 P.3d 1100 (Idaho Ct. App. 2001).
50 See In re Escheat of $92,800, Note, Treasure Trove – History and Development, 22
Temple L. Q. 326, 339-31 (1948-49) (Pa. Ct. C.P. Phila. County 1948), vacated sub nom. In
re Rogers, 62 A.2d 900 (Pa. 1949).
51 In re Rogers, 62 A.2d 900, 903 (Pa. 1949) (stating “[w]e purposely refrain, therefore,
from considering whether the law of treasure trove is or ever has been a part of the law of
Pennsylvania”).
52 See Willsmore v. Township of Oceola, 308 N.W.2d 796, 800 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
53 See, eg., Alaska Stat. §12.36.045; Cal. Civ. Code §2080; N.Y. Pers. Prop. §254 (Consol.
1988); Wis. Stat. §§170.07-170.11.