Charrier v.

Bell
Brief Fact Summary. An amateur archeologist excavated American Indian artifacts from burial plots on land which he did not own. He attempted to sell the collection, but could not prove ownership of the artifacts. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Objects found in burial plots are not abandoned property; instead, they belong to the descendants and cannot be acquired over the objection of the descendants.

Facts. Charrier is an amateur archaeologist, and he found an area which was once the site of an American Indian village. He spent three years excavating the site and excavated a large amount of artifacts, even though he knew he did not have permission from the landowner. Because he was unable to prove ownership over the artifacts, he could not sell the collection. He sought a judgment declaring himself the owner of the artifacts, or in the alternative, compensation under the theory of unjust enrichment for his time and expenses. The trial court denied both claims. Issue. When a person expends a large amount of time and money excavating buried cultural objects, do those objects belong to him?
Held. No. Judgment affirmed. Even though the American Indian tribe claiming ownership of the objects cannot provide a perfect chain of title that traces their ancestors to those buried in the village, enough evidence exists to prove there is descent. Even though the tribe moved from the location of the burial plots, they did not abandon the property. Objects that are buried are done so with the intention that they remain in the ground. Another person cannot claim ownership of those objects by simply excavating them. For a claim of unjust enrichment, the plaintiff must prove that he sustained an impoverishment. An impoverishment occurs when the plaintiff was not at fault or negligent or did not take the action at his own risk. Here, Charrier knew he was acting at his own risk or possibly out of negligence because he knew he did not have permission from the landowner.

Discussion. Objects buried with the dead belong to the deceaseds ancestors and are not abandoned property. If they are excavated by a third party without permission of the owners, the third party is not entitled to any unjust enrichment

Tapscott v. Lessee of Cobbs

Brief Fact Summary. A man moved onto an unoccupied piece of land without any title. The heirs of the deceased owner brought an action of ejectment against him. Synopsis of Rule of Law. A person who has the right to possess land may successfully bring an action of ejectment against a person who has ousted him or her in order to regain possession.

Facts. Cobbs wrongfully takes property from the true landowner but claims to be the rightful owner. Then, Tapscott enters the land and occupies it. Cobbs brings an action for ejectment to remove Tapscott from the land. Issue. Even though a person may not have title to property she possesses, can she still successfully regain possession of the land when another person forces himself onto the land
Held. Yes. Judgment affirmed. Neither of the two parties are the true owner of the land. When a dispute arises over possession of the land, the land will be given to the first possessor. The suit is not about who has title, but about who has a right of possession, so the later possessor cannot defend his claim by showing that title belongs to a third person.

Discussion. When two people have an interest in land that is solely possessory, and one has ousted the other, the first possessor will have priority in the land over the subsequent possessor. The idea of title is relative title may be good against one person (such as a subsequent possessor) but not against another (such as the true owner). Otherwise, people may engage in violence to get possession of land and still be able to defeat the claim of the original posse