金融法律辅导:美国财产法(5)
Acquisition by Find 在美国财产法上有五种不同形态的无主物:丢失物(lost property),错放物(Mislaid),抛弃物(Abandoned property),无主财宝(Treasure trove)和沉船(Shipwrecks)。对以上几种无主物的占有,美国法律一般认为,丢失或错放财物的所有权仍属于财产的原主人(An owner of property does not lose title by losing his property)。但是,除了真正的物主(true owner)之外,发现丢失财物者对该财物的占有优先于其他任何人(Finder is entitled to possession against all the world except the owner),我们在第一提到的Armory v. Delamirie案就是这方面的典型例子。 下面我们来简要分析一下无主物的所有权取得(Acquisition by Find)中的法律关系: A. 真实物主和发现者的关系(True Owner v. Finder) 1. 丢失或错放财物的所有权仍属于财产的原主人,没有“finders keepers”这样的说法。(Lost or mislaid property goes back to True Owner)。 2. 抛弃物归发现者所有(Abandoned property goes to Finder),另外,抛弃物用拉丁文表示为"res derelictae",这在原版的财产法著作中经常看到。 B. 发现者和土地所有者的关系(Finder v. Landowner) 1. 非法入侵他人领地者,发现丢失物,不可取得对丢失物的占有权,丢失物归现场土地的所有人占有(Property always goes to Landowner if Finder is trespassing)。 2. 在私人场所发现无主物,私人场所的所有人而非发现人取得占有权(Abandoned, lost or mislaid property goes to Landowner if found in a private home)。 3. 在向社会开发的领地上发现丢失物或遗忘物,发现才取得占有权(Abandoned or lost item goes to Finder if found in an area open to the public)。 4. 在向社会开发的领地上发现错放物,领地所有人取得占有权(Mislaid item goes to Landowner if found in an area open to the public)。 5. 家佣在其被雇佣工作期间发现丢失物,主人取得占有权(servant finds for his master)。 其次,在美国,关于无主物的占有取得还有不少政策上的考虑,详情如下: Policy concern: need some rule but does it have to be finder get property and prior possessor prevails? Could be all goes to the government or whoever needs/values it most. Why does it have to be winner take all, could you split it. Justifications for protecting prior possessor's rights are: 1) it preserves law and order, cuts down on succession of theft or frequent change over of possession, 2) rewards those who possess and maintain property, puts land to good use, 3) allows for entrusting of goods, bailment, which is an efficient practice 4)promotes honesty by protecting a finder who reports a find 5) reward labor in returning a useful item to society 6) protects owner without documentation or proof of ownership 7) prior possessors expect to prevail so reinforces idea that law is just |