Case Study Of The Parties: Corliss V. Wenner

BRIEF REQUIREMENT (2nd Draft)

Corliss v. Wenner (finder 's law case)

The Parties: Corliss and Wenner and Anderson
The Plaintiff: Corliss
The Defendant: Wenner and Anderson

Facts:
In 1996, defendant Jann Wenner hires the Larry Anderson, who’s also a defendant, of the Anderson Asphalt Paving Company to construct a driveway on his ranch in Idaho. One day as Anderson and his employee Gregory Corliss, the plaintiff, was clearing the driveway as they cross upon a glass jar that contains paper wrapped rolls of gold coins. They collected 96 gold coins weighing up to 4 pounds. The two initially agreed to split the coins among themselves, with Anderson keeping the coins in his possession. The two soon began arguing over the ownership of the coins

Corliss asked the district court to interpret the facts and circumstances of the coins to either be lost, abandoned or treasure trove. Wenner and Anderson, on the other hand, argued that the property should be categorized either as embedded or mislaid property.

Based on the evidence provided, the district rules that the coins wrapped in paper, does not show evidence of abandonment but more for safe keeping because the coins are carefully wrapped and place in a glass jar. There is also no sign of the coins to be lost property, as the coins are not buried through neglect, carelessness, or inadvertence.

The court favors the Defendant, categorizing the coins to be either embedded or mislaid, thus, the coins will go to the owner, Wenner, not the finder. Although Corliss had a good enough claim using the “finders keepers” rule of treasure trove. But the district court decided that the treasure trove should not be applied in Idaho. The district court is afraid that the treasure trove might be in favor of trespassers in the future.

In the end, the district court ruled that the coins belong to Wenner, as land ownership includes the control over the crops on land, building, soils, and minerals buried under those