![]() |
RDG
online Restitution Discussion Group Archives |
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
||||||||||||
|
agree that common law abandonment would preclude any
lien: as to the owner getting back the animal without paying, i imagine
that in the current US mood of sensitivity or sentimentality to animals,
the finder would be given a medal as well as a lien rather than characterized
as a mere interloper
Robert Stevens wrote:
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)). <== Previous message Back to index Next message ==> |
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
» » » » » |
|
![]() |
|||||||||
![]() |