A treasure trove
may broadly be defined as an
amount of gold, silver, gemstones, money, jewellery, or any
valuable collection found hidden underground or in places such as
cellars or attics, where the treasure seems old enough for it to be
presumed that the true owner is dead and the heirs undiscoverable.
However, both the legal definition of what constitutes a treasure
trove and its treatment under law varies considerably from country
to country, and from era to era.
The term is also often used metaphorically
Collections of articles published as a book are often titled
, as in A Treasure Trove of
. This was especially fashionable for titles of
in the early-
and mid-20th century.
, sometimes rendered
, literally means "treasure that has been
found". The English
was derived from tresor trové
equivalent of the Latin
legal term thesaurus inventus
15th-century English the Anglo-French term was translated as
"treasure found", but from the 16th century it began appearing in
its modern form with the French word trové anglicized
The term treasure trove
is often used
to mean a "valuable find",
and hence a source of treasure, or a reserve or repository of
In Roman law
treasure trove was called
("treasure" in Latin
defined by the Roman jurist Paulus
as "vetus quædam depositio pecuniæ,
cujus non extat memoria, ut jam dominum non habeat
ancient deposit of money, of which no memory exists, so that it has
no present owner). R.W. Lee, in his book The Elements of Roman
(4th ed., 1956), commented that this definition was "not
quite satisfactory" as treasure was not confined to money, nor was
there any abandonment of ownership. Under the emperors
, if treasure was found on a person's
own land or on sacred or religious land, the finder was entitled to
keep it. However, if the treasure was found fortuitously, and not
by deliberate search, on another person's land, half went to the
finder and half to the owner of the land, who might be the emperor,
(public treasury), the
city, or some other proprietor. According to Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius
(1583–1645), as the feudal system
spread over Europe and the prince
was looked on as the ultimate owner of all lands, his right to the
treasure trove became jus commune et quasi gentium
common and quasi-international right) in England, Germany, France,
Spain and Denmark.
English common law
It has been said that the concept of treasure trove in English law
dates back to the time of Edward the Confessor
1003/1004 – 1066). Under the common law
, treasure trove was defined as gold or
silver in any form, whether coin, plate (gold or silver vessels or
utensils) or bullion (a lump of gold or silver), which had been
hidden and rediscovered, and which no person could prove he or she
owned. If the person who had hidden the treasure was known or
discovered later, it belonged to him or her , paras. 1161–1163. or
persons claiming through him or her such as descendants. To be
treasure trove, an object had to be substantially – that is, more
than 50% – gold or silver.
Treasure trove had to be hidden with animus revocandi
that is, an intention to recover it later. If an object was simply
lost or abandoned (for instance, scattered on the surface of the
earth or in the sea), it either belonged to the first person who
found it or the landowner according to the law of finders
is, legal principles concerning the finding of objects.
reason, the objects found in 1939 at Sutton Hoo were determined not to be treasure trove – as the
objects were part of a ship burial,
there had been no intention to recover the buried objects
subsequently. The Crown
trove, and if the circumstances under which an object was found
raised a prima facie presumption
that it had been hidden, it belonged
to the Crown unless someone else could show a better title
to it. The Crown could grant its
right to treasure trove to any person in the form of a franchise
It was the duty of the finder, and indeed of anyone who had
acquired knowledge of the matter, to report the finding of a
potential treasure trove to the coroner
of the district.
Concealing a find was a misdemeanour
paras. 1039–1040. punishable with fine and imprisonment. The
coroner was required to hold an inquest
to determine who were the finders or the
persons suspected to be the finders, "and that may be well
perceived where one liveth riotously and have done so of long
time". Where there had been an apparent concealment of treasure
trove the coroner's jury could investigate the title of the
treasure to discover if it had been concealed from the supposed
owner, but any such finding was not conclusive as the coroner
generally had no jurisdiction to inquire into questions of title to
the treasure between the Crown and any other claimant. If a person
wished to assert title to the treasure, he or she had to bring
separate court proceedings.
In the early 20th century, it became the practice of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury
pay those finders who fully and promptly reported discoveries of
treasure troves and handed them over to the proper authorities the
full antiquarian value of objects which had been retained for
national or other institutions such as museums. Objects not
retained were returned to the finders.
Scottish common law
Under the common law of
, the law of treasure trove was and still is a
specialised application of the general rule governing bona vacantia
("vacant goods") – that is,
objects that are lost, forgotten or abandoned. The rule is quod
nullius esfit domini regis
: "that which belongs to nobody
becomes our Lord the King's [or Queen's]". The Crown in Scotland
has a prerogative right to treasure trove for it is one of the
("minor things of the King"), that is, property rights which the
Crown may exercise as it pleases and which it may alienate
(transfer to another
party). As the Scottish law of treasure trove on the matter has not
changed, it is discussed in the "Present-day legal
" section below, under the subheading "Scotland
United States law
Many states in the US enacted statutes that received English common
law into their legal systems. For example, in 1863 the legislature of
Idaho enacted a statute that made "the common law of
England ... the rule of decision in all courts" of the
However, English common law principles of treasure
trove were not applied in the US. Instead, courts applied rules
relating to the finding of lost and ownerless items. The treasure trove
rule was first given serious consideration by the Oregon Supreme
Court in 1904 in a case involving boys who had discovered
thousands of dollars in gold
coins hidden in metal cans while cleaning out a henhouse.
The Court wrongly believed that the rule operated in the same way
as early rules that awarded possession – and, effectively, legal
title as well – to innocent finders of items that had been mislaid
and the owners of which were unknown. By awarding the coins to the
boys, the Court implied that finders were entitled to buried
valuables, and that any claims by landowners should be
In subsequent years the legal position became unclear as a series
of English and American cases decided that landowners were entitled
to buried valuables. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reconsidered the rule in 1908.
before it involved three workers who had found coins while digging
on their employer's land. The Court decided along the lines of the
1904 Idaho case and awarded the coins to the finders. For the next 30 years,
the courts of a number of states, including Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio and Wisconsin, applied this modified "treasure trove" rule, most
recently in 1948.
Since that time, however, the rule has
fallen out of favour. Modern legal texts regard it as "a
recognized, if not controlling, rule of decision", but one
commentator has called it "a minority rule of dubious heritage that
was misunderstood and misapplied in a few states between 1904 and
Present-day legal definitions
England, Northern Ireland and Wales
Throughout the ages, farmers, archaeologists
and amateur treasure hunters
have unearthed important
treasures of immense historical, scientific and financial value.
However, the strictness of the common law rules meant that such
items were sometimes not treasure trove. The items risked being
sold abroad, or were only saved for the nation by being purchased
at a high price. Mention has already been made of the objects
comprising the Sutton Hoo ship burial, which were not treasure
trove as they had been interred without any intention to retrieve
them. The objects were later presented to the nation by their
owner, Edith May Pretty, in a 1942 bequest. In March 1973, a
hoard of about 7,811 Roman coins was found buried in a field at
Coleby in Lincolnshire.
It was made up of antoniniani
believed to have been minted
between 253 and 281 A.D.
Court of Appeal of England and
Wales held in the 1981 case of Attorney-General of
the Duchy of Lancaster v. G.E. Overton
that the hoard was not treasure trove as the
coins did not have a substantial silver content. Thus, it belonged to
the owner of the field and could not be retained by the British Museum.
To remedy the faults of the old treasure trove regime, the Treasure Act 1996
introduced a new scheme
which came into effect on 24 September 1997. Any treasure found on
and after that date regardless of the circumstances in which it was
deposited, even if it was lost or left with no intention of
recovery, belongs to the Crown, subject to any prior interests or
rights held by any franchisee of the Crown. The Secretary of
State for Culture, Media and Sport
may direct that any such
treasure be transferred or disposed of, or that the Crown's title
in it be disclaimed. , paras. 1077–1100.
The Act uses the term treasure
instead of treasure
; the latter term is now confined to objects found before
the Act came into force. Objects falling within the following
definition are "treasure" under the Act:
- If the object is not a coin, it must be at least 300 years old
and at least 10% precious metal (that is, gold or silver) by
- If the object is a coin, it must either be:
- one of at least two coins in the same find which are at least
300 years old at that time and are at least 10% precious metal by
- one of at least ten coins in the same find which are at least
300 years old at that time.
- Any object at least 200 years old when found which belongs to a
class of objects of outstanding historical, archaeological or
cultural importance that has been designated as treasure by the
Secretary of State. As of 2006, the following classes of objects
had been so designated:
- Any object, other than a coin, any part of which is base metal
(that is, not gold or silver), which when found is one of at least
two base metal objects in the same find which are of prehistoric
- Any object, other than a coin, which is of prehistoric date,
and any part of which is gold or silver.
- Any object which would have been treasure trove if found before
24 September 1997.
- Any object which, when found, is part of the same find as:
- an object within head (1), (2), (3) or (4) above found at the
same time or earlier; or
- an object found earlier which would be within head (1), (2) or
(3) above if it had been found at the same time.
Treasure does not include unworked natural objects, or minerals
extracted from a natural deposit, or objects that have been
designated not to be treasure by the Secretary of State. Objects
falling within the definition of wreck are also not treasure.
Coroners continue to have jurisdiction to inquire into any treasure
found in their districts, and into who are or are suspected to be
its finders. Anyone finding an object he or she believes or has
reasonable grounds to believe is treasure must notify the coroner
for the district in which the object is found within 14 days
starting from the day after the find or, if later, the day on which
the finder first believes or has reason to believe the object is
treasure. Not doing so is an offence. Inquests are held without a
jury unless the coroner decides otherwise. The coroner must notify
the British Museum if his or her district is in England, the
if it is in Northern Ireland, or the National Museum Wales
if it is in
Wales. The coroner must also take reasonable steps to notify any
person who appears may have found the treasure; any person who, at
the time it was found, occupied land which it appears may be where
the treasure was found; and any other interested persons, including
persons involved in the find or having an interest in the land
where the treasure was found at that time or since. However,
coroners still have no power to make any legal determination as to
whether the finder, landowner or occupier of the land has title to
the treasure. The courts have to resolve that issue, and may also
review coroners' decisions in relation to treasure.
When treasure has vested in the Crown and is to be transferred to a
museum, the Secretary of State is required to determine whether a
reward should be paid by the museum before the transfer to the
finder or any other person involved in the finding of the treasure,
the occupier of the land at the time of the find, or any person who
had an interest in the land at the time of the find or has had such
an interest at any time since then. If the Secretary of State
determines that a reward should be paid, he or she must also
determine the market value of the treasure (assisted by the
Treasure Valuation Committee), the amount of the reward (which
cannot exceed the market value), to whom the reward should be paid
and, if more than one person should be paid, how much each person
In England and Wales, finders of objects that are not treasure or
treasure trove are encouraged to voluntarily report them under the
to finds liaison officers at county councils
museums. Under the scheme, which started in September 1997, the
officers examine finds and provide finders with information on
them. They also record the finds, their functions, dates, materials
and locations, and place this information into a database which can
be analysed. The information on the findspots may be used to
organize further research on the areas. Non-treasure finds remain
the property of their finders or landowners, who are free to
dispose of them as they wish.
On 5 July
2009 the largest single Anglo-Saxon
hoard as of that date, consisting of over 1,500 gold and precious metal pieces, helmets and sword
decorations tentatively dated to around 600–800 A.D., was
discovered by Terry Herbert in Staffordshire, England.
reported the find to his local Portable Antiquities Scheme officer,
and on 24 September 2009 it was declared to be treasure by the
The Treasure Act 1996 does not apply in Scotland. Treasure trove in
Scotland is dealt with under the common law of Scotland
. The general
rule that governs bona
("vacant goods") – that is, objects that are
lost, forgotten or abandoned – is quod nullius esfit domini
("that which belongs to nobody becomes our Lord the
King's [or Queen's]"), and the law of treasure trove is a
specialized application of that rule. As in England, the Crown in
Scotland has a prerogative right to treasure trove for it is one of
("minor things of the King"), that is, property
rights which the Crown may exercise as it pleases and which it may
To qualify as treasure trove, an object must be precious, it must
be hidden, and there must be no proof of its property or reasonable
presumption of its former ownership. Unlike under English common
law, treasure is not restricted to only gold and silver objects.
In 1888 a
prehistoric jet necklace and some
other articles found in Forfarshire were claimed by the authorities though they were
neither gold nor silver.
A compromise was eventually
reached, and the find was deposited in the National Museum of Scotland
1958, a porpoise bone was found together
with 28 other objects of silver alloy (12 brooches, seven bowls, a hanging bowl and other small
metal work) underneath a stone slab marked with a cross on the
floor of St. Ninian's Church on St. Ninian's Isle in the Shetlands.
The objects were dated to about 800 A.D. A
dispute having arisen over ownership of the objects between the
Crown on the one hand, and the finder (the University of Aberdeen
, which had
carried out the archaeological excavation) and the landowner on the
other, in Lord Advocate v. University of Aberdeen (1963)
the Court of
Session held that the bone should be regarded as treasure
trove together with the silver objects.
requirement that an object must be "hidden" means no more than that
it must be concealed; it refers to the condition in which the
object was found and does not refer back to the intention which the
owner of the object may have had in hiding it. Finally, the
requirement that there must be no reasonable presumption of former
ownership means that it must not be possible to trace the ownership
of the object to a person or family currently existing. Even if an
object does not qualify as treasure trove, it may be claimed by the
Crown as bona vacantia
and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer
(QLTR), an office held by the
who is the senior officer of the Crown Office in
, is responsible for claiming bona vacantia
behalf of the Crown in Scotland. Finders of items are required to
report such finds to the Crown Office or to the Treasure Trove Unit
(TTU) at the National Museums of Scotland in Edinburgh. Each find
is assessed by the Scottish Archaeological Finds Allocation Panel,
which decides if the find is of national importance. If it is, the
matter is referred by the TTU to the QLTR department at the Crown
Office, which will inform the finder that it has accepted the
Panel's recommendation to claim the objects in the find as treasure
trove or bona vacantia
The Panel also recommends to the QLTR a reward for the find based
on its current market value where appropriate, and the most
appropriate museum in Scotland to allocate it to. The TTU then
contacts all museums which have bid for finds to advise them of the
Panel's recommendations. The museums have 14 days in which to
accept or reject the proposed allocation and reward for the find.
If the QLTR accepts the Panel's recommendations, it will notify the
finder of the amount of any reward being paid and the museum that
the find has been allocated to. The QLTR also asks the museum to
pay the finder's reward.
While a treasury order of 1886 made provision for the preservation
of suitable objects in various national museums and payment of
rewards to their finders, the Crown is under no legal obligation to
offer any rewards for treasure trove objects it has claimed.
However, it usually does so, using the objects' market price as a
guide. A reward may be withheld or reduced if the finder has
inappropriately handled an object, for instance, damaged it by
cleaning it or applying waxes and varnishes to it. Finders may
elect to waive their rewards. Rewards are not paid for finds
occurring during organized fieldwork.
The law of treasure trove in the United States varies from state to
state, but certain general conclusions may be drawn. To be treasure
trove, an object must be of gold or silver. Paper money
is also deemed to be treasure trove
since it represents gold or silver. On the same reasoning, it might
be imagined that coins and tokens in metals other than gold or
silver are also included, but this has yet to be clearly
established. The object must be concealed for long enough so it is
unlikely that the true owner will reappear to claim it. The
consensus appears to be that the object must be at least a few
majority of state courts, including those of Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New
York, Ohio, Oregon and Wisconsin, have ruled that the finder of treasure trove is
entitled to it.
The theory is that the English monarch's
claim to treasure trove was based on a statutory enactment which
replaced the finder's original right. When this statute was not
re-enacted in the United States after its independence
the right to treasure trove reverted to the finder.
Idaho and Tennessee courts have decided that treasure trove belongs to
the owner of the place where it was found, the rationale being to
avoid rewarding trespassers.
Pennsylvania case, a lower court ruled that the common law did
not vest treasure trove in the finder but in the sovereign, and
awarded a find of US$92,800
cash to the state. However, this judgment was reversed by the
Court of Pennsylvania on the basis that it had not yet been decided if
the law of treasure trove was part of Pennsylvania law.
Supreme Court deliberately refrained from deciding the issue.
Finds of money and lost property are dealt with by other states
through legislation. These statutes usually require finders to
report their finds to the police and transfer to their custody the
objects. The police then advertise the finds to try and locate
their true owner. If the objects remain unclaimed for a specified
period of time, title in them vests in the finders. New Jersey vests buried or hidden property in the landowner,
Indiana in the
county, Vermont in the township, and
Maine in the township and the finder equally.
Louisiana, French codes have
been followed, so half of a found object goes to the finder and the
other half to the landowner.
The position in Puerto Rico
, the laws of which are based on
Finders who are trespassers generally lose all their rights to
finds, unless the trespass is regarded as "technical or
Where the finder is an employee, most cases hold that the find
should be awarded to the employer if it has a heightened legal
obligation to take care of its customers' property, otherwise it
should go to the employee. A find occurring in a bank is generally
awarded to the bank as the owner is likely to have been a bank
customer and the bank has a fiduciary
to try to reunite lost property with their owners. For
similar reasons, common carriers
preferred to passengers and hotels to guests (but only where finds
occur in guest rooms, not common areas). The view has been taken
that such a rule is suitable for recently misplaced objects as it
provides the best chance for them to be reunited with their owners.
However, it effectively delivers title of old artifacts to
landowners, since the older an object is, the less likely it is
that the original depositor will return to claim it. The rule is
therefore of little or no relevance to objects of archaeological
Due to the potential for a conflict
, police officers and other persons working in law
enforcement occupations, and armed forces are not entitled to finds
in some states.
By the Archaeological Resources Protection Act 1979, finds more
than a hundred years old on government land belong to the
government. There is analogous state legislation. Special rules
also apply to grave goods
burials discovered on Federal
tribal lands under the Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
enacted on 16
- That is, the dialect of French that developed in England following
the decline of the Anglo-Norman language.
- . See, for example, the following news articles: ("An
extraordinarily diverse array of marine life has been discovered in
the deep, dark waters around Antarctica."); ("A Nasa space probe
measuring the oldest light in the Universe has found that cosmic
neutrinos made up 10% of matter shortly after the Big Bang. ...
Scientists say it is collecting a 'treasure trove' of information
about the Universe's age, make-up and fate."); ("The moving story
of one of the last survivors of the Titanic can be revealed for the
first time after touching letters and documents were discovered
after her death.").
41. I. 31, 1: see .
- Institutes of
Justinian, bk. II, tit. i, para. 39: see Sandars,
Institutes of Justinian, p. 190; Lee, Elements of
Roman Law, pp. 139, 145.
- , 29 vols.
- Lord Denning M.R. in
Attorney-General of the Duchy of Lancaster v. G.E. Overton
(Farms) Ltd.  Ch. 277 at p. 285, C.A.
- In Attorney-General of the Duchy of Lancaster v. G.E.
Overton (Farms) Ltd., p. 288, Lord Denning said: "'Coin' is a
coin of gold or silver, 'plate' is something manufactured of it;
'bullion' is a lump of it. Anything which is not a gold or silver
object is not treasure trove."
- Attorney-General of the Duchy of Lancaster v. G.E. Overton
(Farms) Ltd. at pp. 291–292.
- , book 3, ch. 3, folio 118;
Armory v. Delamirie (1722) 1 Stra.
- Attorney-General v. Moore  1 Ch. 676 at 683;
Attorney-General v. Trustees of the British Museum 
2 Ch. 598.
- ; , cited with approval in Attorney-General v. Moore,
p. 683, and Attorney-General v. Trustees of British
Museum, p. 608.
- R. v. Toole (1867) 11 Cox. C.C. 75; R. v. Thomas
& Willett (1863) Le. & Ca. 313, 12 W.R. 108.
- R. v. Thomas & Willett.
- De Officio Coronatoris (Office of Coroner Act) 1276
Edw. I, c. 2), which was declaratory of the common law. This
statute was repealed by the Coroners Act 1887 (50
& 51 Vict., c. 71), s. 45, Sch. 3, but the
coroner's jurisdiction as regards treasure trove was
preserved by ss. 36 and 45(5) of the same Act. See also
Bracton, book 3, ch. 6, fol. 122; ; .
- , 2 vols.; Attorney-General v. Moore, p. 683;
Attorney-General of the Duchy of Lancaster v. G.E. Overton
(Farms) Ltd., p. 287.
- Attorney-General v. Moore; Attorney-General v.
Trustees of British Museum.
- Home Office
Instruction 159308/14 dated 30 June 1925; Home Office Instruction
159308/47 dated 12 June 1931.
- For comments on difficulties caused by the law relating to
treasure trove, see .
- Treasure Act (1996 c. 24). See also the .
- Treasure Act 1996 (Commencement No. 2) Order 1997 S.I.
1997/1977), art. 2.
- Treasure Act, ss. 4(1), 4(4).
- Treasure Act, s. 6(2).
- Treasure Act, s. 6(3).
- Treasure Act, s. 1(1).
- "Coin" includes any metal token which was, or can reasonably be
assumed to have been, used or intended for use as or instead of
money: Treasure Act, ss. 3(1), 3(3).
- An object which can reasonably be taken to be at least a
particular age is to be presumed to have been at least that age,
unless shown not to be: Treasure Act, ss. 3(1), 3(6).
- The figure of 10% was chosen because if an alloy has more than 10% gold or silver, it shows
that one of those precious metals was deliberately added to the
alloy. It also excludes objects which are merely plated with gold or silver:
House of Commons
Official Report SC F (Treasure Bill), 17 April 1996, cols. 10 and
- Treasure Act, ss. 3(1), 3(3).
- An object is part of the same find as another object if (1)
they are found together; (2) the other object was found earlier in
the same place where they had been left together; or (3) the other
object was found earlier in a different place, but they had been
left together and had become separated before being found: Treasure
Act, ss. 3(1), 3(4).
- Treasure Act, s. 2(1).
- Treasure (Designation) Order 2002 (S.I. 2002/2666),
- Treasure (Designation) Order 2002, art. 2.
- An object is of prehistoric date if it dates from the
Iron Age or any
earlier period: Treasure (Designation) Order 2002, art. 2.
- Under the Treasure Act, s. 2(2).
- Treasure Act, s. 1(2). As at 2006, no designation had been
- The term "wreck" includes flotsam (floating debris from a
(goods thrown overboard from a ship in distress to lighten its
load), lagan (goods found or left on the sea floor) and derelict
(abandoned goods) found in or on the shores of the sea or any tidal
water: Merchant Shipping Act 1995, s. 255(1), made applicable by
the Treasure Act, ss. 3(1), 3(7).
- Treasure Act, ss. 3(1), 3(7).
- Coroners Act 1988 (1998 c. 13), s. 30.
- Treasure Act, ss. 8(1), 8(2).
- Treasure Act, s. 8(3).
- Treasure Act, s. 7(4).
- Treasure Act, ss. 9(2), 13(b).
- Treasure Act, s. 9(3).
- Treasure Act, ss. 9(5), 9(7).
- Under the Coroners Act, s. 13, or by way of judicial review.
- Treasure Act, ss. 10(1), 10(2).
- Treasure Act, s. 10(5).
- Treasure Act, s. 10(3).
- ; .
- Treasure Act, s. 15(3).
- Lord Patrick in Lord Advocate v. University of Aberdeen
1963 S.C. 533 at p. 554, Inner House, Court of Session, citing Sands v.
Bell & Balfour (22 May 1810), F.C.; Lord Hunter in Lord Advocate
v. University of Aberdeen, p. 549, Outer House, Court of Session,
citing an earlier edition of , s. 1291(3).
- Lord Mackintosh in Lord Advocate v. University of
Aberdeen, p. 561, Outer House, citing an earlier edition of ,
vol. 2, ch. 1, pp. 11–12.
- Lord Hunter in Lord Advocate v. University of
Aberdeen, p. 543, citing an earlier edition of , ch. 3, pp.
14–16 and 18.
- Lord Hunter, Lord Advocate v. University of Aberdeen,
p. 542, citing , vol. 1, ch. 16, pp. 40 and 45; , vol. 2, ch. 3, p.
60, and vol. 3, ch. 3, p. 27; Bankton, An Institute of the Laws
of Scotland in Civil Rights, vol. 1, ch. 3, p. 16; and Bell,
Principles of the Law of Scotland, s. 1293.
- , col. 1010.
- Lord Hunter in Lord Advocate v. University of
Aberdeen, p. 548, Outer House, citing Bankton, An
Institute of the Laws of Scotland in Civil Rights, vol. 1, ch.
8, p. 9.
- Lord Mackintosh in Lord Advocate v. University of
Aberdeen, p. 559, Inner House; see also Lord Patrick in the
same case, p. 555.
- Lord Mackintosh in Lord Advocate v. University of
Aberdeen, pp. 559–560, Inner House.
- Lord Hunter in Lord Advocate v. University of
Aberdeen, p. 548, Outer House, citing More's notes to Stair,
The Institutions of the Law of Scotland, vol. 1, p.
- Lord Mackintosh in Lord Advocate v. University of
Aberdeen, p. 559, Inner House.
- In Favorite v. Miller 407 A. 2d 974 (Connecticut, 1978), the court
stated that the "strict definition" that limited treasure trove to
gold and silver objects was "well-established" in US law.
- Terry v. Lock 37 S.W. 3d 202 at p. 206 (Arkansas, 2001).
- Favorite v. Miller, at p. 978 n. 2 (the court held it
was unnecessary to decide the issue definitively).
- Hill v. Schrunk 292 P. 2d 141 at p. 143 (Oregon, 1956).
- In Terry v. Lock, 11 years was held to be too little
time, whereas in Benjamin v. Lindner Aviation, Inc. 534
N.W. 2d 400 at p. 407 (Iowa,
1995) and Ritz v. Selma United Methodist Church 467 N.W.
2d 266 at p. 269 (Iowa, 1991) the view was taken that periods of 35
and 59 years respectively might be sufficient.
- and , cited in Kleeberg, p. 17.
- Corliss v. Wenner 34 P. 3d 1100 (Idaho
- Morgan v. Wiser 711 S.W. 2d 220 (Tennessee Court of Appeals,
- In re Escheat of $92,800 (Philadelphia County
Court of Common Pleas,
1948): see .
- In re Rogers 62 A. 2d 900 at p. 903 (Philadelphia,
- Kleeberg, p. 18.
- See, for example, Alaska Statutes §12.36.045; California
Civil Code §2050; New
York Personal Property Law §254 (Consolidated, 1988);
and Annotations §§170.07–11.
- New Jersey
Statutes Annotated §46:30C-4.
- Indiana Code
- Vermont Statutes Annotated, title
- Maine Revised Statutes
Annotated, title 33, §1056.
- Kleeberg, pp. 18–19.
- Kleeberg, p. 14.
- Barker v. Bates 23 Am. Dec. 678 (Massachusetts, 1832);
Mitchell v. Oklahoma Cotton Growers' Ass'n 235 P. 597 at
p. 599 (Oklahoma,
1925); Niederlehner v. Weatherley 54 N.E. 2d 312 at p. 315
(Ohio C.A., 1943); Bishop
v. Ellsworth 234 N.E. 2d 49 (Illinois C.A., 1968); Favorite v. Miller;
Morgan v. Wiser, pp. 222–223.
- Favorite, p. 977.
- Kleeberg. p. 19.
- See, for example, Ray v. Flower Hospital 439 N.E. 2d
942 (Ohio C.A., 1981).
- Foster v. Fiduciary Safe Deposit Co. 145 S.W. 139
(Missouri Court of Appeals, 1912);
Dennis v. Nw. National Bank 81 N.W. 2d 254 (Minnesota, 1957).
- McDonald v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. 81 S.E. 2d
525 (Georgia Court of Appeals,
- Jackson v. Steinburg 200 P. 2d 376 (Oregon, 1948); Flax v. Monticello
Realty Co. 39 S.E. 2d 308 (Virginia, 1946).
- Kleeberg, pp. 20–22.
- Arizona Revised
Statutes §12-941; Florida Statutes §705.104; New York
Personal Property Law §256 (Consolidated, 1988); Washington Revised Code
§63.21.070; Wisconsin Statutes and Annotations §170.105; In re
Funds in the Possession of Conemaugh Township Supervisors 724
A. 2d 990 (Philadelphia Commw. Ct., 1999); Pennsylvania v.
$7,000.00 in U.S. Currency 742 A. 2d 711 (Philadelphia Commw.
- Farrare v. City of Pasco 843 P. 2d 1082 (Washington Court of Appeals,
1992) (baggage examiner in airport).
- Morrison v. US 492 F. 2d 1219 (Ct. Cl., 1974).
- Kleeberg, pp. 21–22.
- 16 United States
Code §§470aa–mm (2000).
- 25 United States
Code §§3001–3013 at §3002.
- Kleeberg, pp. 22–23.
- , paras. 1077–1100.
- , paras. 1161–1163.
- , paras. 1039–1040.
- Attorney-General v. Moore  1 Ch.
- Attorney-General v. Trustees of the British
Museum  2 Ch. 598
- Attorney-General of the Duchy of Lancaster v.
G.E. Overton (Farms) Ltd.  Ch. 277, C.A.
- Lord Advocate v. University of Aberdeen 1963.
- R. v. Thomas & Willett (1863) Le. &
Ca. 313, 12 W.R. 108