Stricker v. . Buncombe County

Adams, J. It is elementary law that one who finds a lost chattel, although it has not been abandoned, is entitled to possession against all persons except the true owner. With respect to the loser the title is unaffected by the mere incident of loss and he may reclaim his property from the finder. To this rule there is a generally recognized exception if the property consists of negotiable securities. Although the thief or finder of a negotiable-instrument can acquire no title against the real owner, still, if the instrument be endorsed in blank or be made payable to bearer, a third party acquiring it from the thief or finder, bona fide, for a valuable consideration, before maturity and without notice of the loss, may retain it as against the true owner upon whom the loss falls. Calvert’s Daniel on Negotiable Instruments (7th ed.), section 1731. To a large extent negotiable securities take the place of money. “It would be most embarrassing therefore,” it is said, “if every taker of such paper was bound, at his peril, to inquire into the title of the holder, and if he was obliged to take it with all the imperfections and subject to all the defenses which attach to it in the hands of the holder. It has, therefore, become the settled rule that a thief or any other person having-possession of such paper fair upon its face can give a holder in due course a good title to it against all the parties thereto as well as the true owner. It may be taken to be the well settled rule of law that the transfer of stolen commercial paper, negotiable by delivery, to a bona fide purchaser for value, without notice and before maturity, vests him with a good title against the world.” 3 R. C. L., Bills and Notes, sec. 210. *539 There is abundant authority in support of the judgment. Murray v. Lardner, 2 Wall., 110, 17 L. Ed., 857; Hotchkiss v. Nat. Shoe and Leather Bank, 21 Wall., 354, 22 L. Ed., 645; Morgan v. United States, 113 U. S., 476, 28 L. Ed., 1044; Crittenden v. Widrevitz, 272 Fed., 871; Murray v. Wagner, 277 Fed., 32; Pratt v. Higginson, 230 Mass., 256, 1 A. L. R., 714, and annotation; Hancock v. Empire Cotton Oil Co., 86 S. E. (Ga.), 434. Judgment Affirmed.