Armory v. Delamirie

SIR JOHN PRATT, CJ, at nisi prius.
The plaintiff, being a chimney sweeper's boy, found a jewel and took it to the defendant's shop (who was a goldsmith) to know what it was. He delivered it into the hands of the defendant's apprentice who, under pretence of weighing it, took out the stones and called to the master to let him know it came to three halfpence. The master offered the plaintiff that money, which he refused to take and insisted on having the jewel again, whereupon the apprentice gave him back the socket without the stones. In an action of trover against the master,

Ruled the following points: (i) That the finder of a jewel, though he does not by such finding acquire an absolute property or ownership, yet he has such a property as will enable him to keep it against all but the rightful owner, and consequently may maintain trover.

(ii) That the action well lay against the master who gives a credit to his apprentice and is answerable for his neglect.

(iii) As to the value of the jewel, several of the trade were examined to prove what a jewel of the finest water that would fit the socket would be worth; and SIR JOHN PRATT, CJ, directed the jury that, unless the defendant did produce the jewel and show it not to be of the finest water, they should presume the strongest against him and make the value of the best jewels the measure of their damages, which they accordingly did.