Restitution Discussion Group Archives
| Sender: |
Robert Stevens |
| Date: |
Mon, 8 Dec 2003 16:42:40 |
| Re: |
Animal rights |
In England it is assumed that there would be no such
lien: Nicholson v. Chapman (1793), 2 H. Bl. 254; 126 ER 536.
Generally speaking, it is also assumed than necessitous
interveners don't have a free standing claim to recover the expenses incurred.
The Dogs' Home won't have a claim against an owner who is glad to see
the back of the mutt.
Personally, I am attracted to the view that where a duty
to intervene exists (section
149(1) Environmental Protection Act) so should a right to compensation
for expenses incurred (section 149(5)).
RS
in US law generally, there would be
a common law finder's lien for reasonable expenses in preservation of
the thing found
<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>
»
»
»
»
| For
editorial policy, see here. For the unedited archive, see here. The archive editor is Steve Hedley. |
