Armory v Delamirie [1722]

Armory v Delamirie [1722] EWHC J94 is a landmark English case in personal property law and finder's rights, establishing the principle that possession can be a valuable property right and evidence of ownership. This case involved a dispute between Armory, a chimney sweep's boy, and Paul de Lamerie (referred to as Delamirie in the case report), a renowned goldsmith, whose name was misspelled by the court reporter.

Armory, while working as a chimney sweep's boy, found a jewel set in a ring. He took the jewel to Delamirie's shop to have it valued. An apprentice working for Delamirie removed the gems from the setting under the pretense of weighing it. The apprentice returned the empty setting to Armory and offered him a payment of three halfpence for it. Armory refused the offer and demanded the return of the jewel in its original condition. Instead, the apprentice returned only the empty setting. Consequently, Armory sued Delamirie in trover, holding him responsible for his apprentice's actions.

The primary issue before the court was whether either Armory or Delamirie had property rights to the jewel, despite neither being the true owner. The Court of King's Bench held that both Armory and Delamirie had property rights to the jewel, enforceable against everyone except those with a greater right to possession. Sir John Pratt CJ ruled that both parties had a right to possession of the jewel, but the true owner was not relevant to the court's decision. The principle established was that a finder of an item has better title to it over everyone except the true owner. Therefore, Armory had full title to the jewel.

The court ruled that a finder of a jewel, even without absolute property or ownership, has a right to keep it against all but the rightful owner and can maintain an action in trover. The action was rightly brought against Delamirie, as the master, for the actions of his apprentice, following the principle that a master is responsible for the actions of their apprentice. To determine the value of the jewel, the court heard evidence from several experts in the trade. The Chief Justice directed the jury to presume the highest value for the jewel unless Delamirie could produce it and show it to be of lesser value. The jury awarded damages based on the presumed maximum value.

Since the jewel was not produced at the trial, the court awarded Armory the maximum value that a jewel of that type could have. This decision was based on the principle that a wrongdoer should not benefit from the uncertainty of damages caused by their wrongdoing. This case is significant for establishing that possession can be a powerful claim to property, second only to the claim of the true owner, and for holding masters liable for the actions of their apprentices.