Deeds registration is a land management system whereby all important instruments which relate to the common law title to parcels of land are registered on a government-maintained register. Deeds registration systems were set up to facilitate the transfer of title; the system had been used in some common law jurisdictions and continues to be used in some jurisdictions, including most of the United States. It is being replaced by Torrens systems in many jurisdictions. Australia, Ireland as well as most Canadian provinces have converted from deeds registries to Torrens titles; some Canadian provinces have always used Torrens titles. Other Canadian provinces which have converted from a deeds registry to Torrens titles have operated both systems in conjunction until the Torrens system superseded the deeds registry system, as was the case in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick during the 2000s. In the Canadian province of Ontario, electronic registration led to Ontario's version of Torrens title covering all land, but the past deeds registration still governs some issues.
Hong Kong and the Canadian provinces of Quebec and Labrador and Prince Edward Island are the only provinces left which still operate a deeds registration system. In contrast to the Torrens system in which the one who registered in a land registry as owner of a piece or parcel of land has an indefeasible title of the land, deeds registration system is a registration of all important instruments related to that land. In order to establish one's title to the land, a person will ascertain, for example: all the title documents have been properly executed, "a chain of title" is established, i.e. the proper ownerships from the granting of the land from the government to the current owner, there are no encumbrances on the land that will harm the title of the land. Since, in contrast to the Torrens system, the registry is a record of all instruments related to the land, the "owner" as shown on the land registry record does not mean that he has a "good title", which means a title, not defeasible or defeasible.
In a sale and purchase of land, a vendor is required to show a "good title" to the purchaser. Since the land search record is not conclusive, it leads to problems when a vendor has to prove his title, in particular when the land is old or involves multiple encumbrances; this may lead to litigation. In Hong Kong, the vendor is only required to prove his title up to 15 years prior to the date of the sale and purchase. Further, various legislative measures relieve the vendor's duty. For example, the vendor can rely on assumption that a recital of an instrument referring to matters prior to 15-year-old is true. In Ireland a vendor has to produce "a good root of title". A purchaser cannot insist that the root of title be more than 40 years old and the practice is to only insist on a minimal 20-year period because there is a presumption that the recitals in a conveyance for valuable consideration are true if that conveyance is at least 20 years old. Many jurisdictions have switched or are switching from a deeds registration system to a system of title registration.
For example, Hong Kong, one of the last common law jurisdictions to maintain a deed registration system, passed the Land Titles Ordinance in 2004, which will see Hong Kong shift to the Torrens system. The law will be implemented over a period of twelve years. However, there is no timetable for the commencement of the Ordinance as at 2016. Land registration Recording Recorder of deeds
Escheat is a common law doctrine that transfers the real property of a person who died without heirs to the Crown or state. It serves to ensure, it applied to a number of situations where a legal interest in land was destroyed by operation of law, so that the ownership of the land reverted to the superior feudal lord. The term "escheat" derives from the Latin ex-cadere, to "fall-out", via mediaeval French escheoir; the sense is of a feudal estate in land falling-out of the possession by a family into possession by the overlord. In feudal England, escheat referred to the situation where the tenant of a fee died without an heir or committed a felony. In the case of such demise of a tenant-in-chief, the fee reverted to the King's demesne permanently, when it became once again a mere tenantless plot of land, but could be re-created as a fee by enfeoffment to another of the king's followers. Where the deceased had been subinfeudated by a tenant-in-chief, the fee reverted temporarily to the crown for one year and one day by right of primer seisin after which it escheated to the over-lord who had granted it to the deceased by enfeoffment.
From the time of Henry III, the monarchy took particular interest in escheat as a source of revenue. At the Norman Conquest of England all the land of England was claimed as the personal possession of William the Conqueror under allodial title; the monarch thus became the sole "owner" of all the land in the kingdom, a position which persists to the present day. He granted it out to his favoured followers, who thereby became tenants-in-chief, under various contracts of feudal land tenure; such tenures the highest one of "feudal barony", never conferred ownership of land but ownership of rights over it, to say ownership of an estate in land. Such persons are therefore termed "land-holders" or "tenants", not owners. If held, to say by freehold, such holdings were heritable by the holder's legal heir. On the payment of a premium termed feudal relief to the treasury, such heir was entitled to demand re-enfeoffment by the king with the fee concerned. Where no legal heir existed, the logic of the situation was that the fief had ceased to exist as a legal entity, since being tenantless no one was living, enfeoffed with the land, the land was thus technically owned by either the crown or the immediate overlord as ultimus heres.
Logically therefore it was in the occupation of the crown alone, to say in the royal demesne. This was the basic operation of a failure of heirs. Escheat could take place if a tenant was outlawed or convicted of a felony, when the King could exercise the ancient right of wasting the criminal's land for a year and a day, after that the land would return to the lord. Since disavowal of a feudal bond was considered a felony, lords could escheat land from those who refused to be true to their feudal services. On the other hand, there were tenants who were sluggish in performing their duties, while not being outright rebellious against the lord. Remedies in the courts against this sort of thing in Bracton's day, were available, but were considered laborious and ineffectual in compelling the desired performance; the commonest mechanism would be distraint called distress: the lord would seize some chattel, hold it until performance was achieved. This practice had been dealt with in the 1267 Statute of Marlborough.
So, it remained the most common extrajudicial method applied by the lords at the time of Quia Emptores. Thus, under English common law, there were two main ways an escheat could happen: A person's property escheated if he was convicted of a felony. If the person was executed for the crime, his heirs were attainted, i.e. ineligible to inherit. In most common-law jurisdictions, this type of escheat has been abolished outright, for example in the United States under Article 3 § 3 of the United States Constitution, which states that attainders for treason do not give rise to posthumous forfeiture, or "corruption of blood". If a person had no heir to receive their property under a will or under the laws of intestacy any property he owned at death would escheat; this rule has been replaced in most common-law jurisdictions by a similar concept. From the 12th century onward, the Crown appointed escheators to manage escheats and report to the Exchequer, with one escheator per county established by the middle of the 14th century.
Upon the death of a tenant-in-chief, the escheator would be instructed by a writ of diem clausit extremum issued by the king's chancery, to empanel a jury to hold an "inquisition post mortem" to ascertain who the legal heir was, if any, what was the extent of the land held. Thus it would be revealed, it was important for the king to know who the heir was, to assess his personal qualities, since he would thenceforth form a constituent part of the royal army, if he held under military tenure. If there was any doubt, the escheator would sei
A deed is any legal instrument in writing which passes, affirms or confirms an interest, right, or property and, signed, delivered, in some jurisdictions, sealed. It is associated with transferring title to property; the deed has a greater presumption of validity and is less rebuttable than an instrument signed by the party to the deed. A deed can be bilateral. Deeds include conveyances, licenses, patents and conditionally powers of attorney if executed as deeds; the deed is the modern descendant of the medieval charter, delivery is thought to symbolically replace the ancient ceremony of livery of seisin. The traditional phrase signed and delivered refers to the practice of seals. Agreements under seal are called contracts by deed or specialty. In some jurisdictions, specialties have a liability limitation period of double that of a simple contract and allow for a third party beneficiary to enforce an undertaking in the deed, thereby overcoming the doctrine of privity. Specialties, as a form of contract, are bilateral and can therefore be distinguished from covenants, being under seal, are unilateral promises.
At common law, to be valid and enforceable, a deed must meet several requirements: It must state on its face that it is a deed, using wording like "This Deed..." or "executed as a deed". It must indicate that the instrument itself conveys some thing to someone; the grantor must have the legal ability to grant the thing or privilege, the grantee must have the legal capacity to receive it. It must be executed by the grantor in presence of the prescribed number of witnesses, known as instrumentary witnesses. In some jurisdictions, a seal must be affixed to it. Affixing seals made persons parties to the deed and signatures optional, but seals are now outdated in most jurisdictions, so the signatures of the grantor and witnesses are primary, it must be delivered to and, in some jurisdictions, accepted by the grantee. Conditions attached to the acceptance of a deed are known as covenants. A deed indented or indenture is one executed in two or more parts according to the number of parties, which were separated by cutting in a curved or indented line known as the chirograph.
A deed poll is one executed in one part, by one party, having the edge polled or cut and includes simple grants and appointments. In the transfer of real estate, a deed conveys ownership from the old owner to the new owner, can include various warranties; the precise name and nature of these warranties differ by jurisdiction. However, the basic differences between them is the degree to which the grantor warrants the title; the grantor may give a general warranty of title against any claims, or the warranty may be limited to only claims which occurred after the grantor obtained the real estate. The latter type of deed is known as a special warranty deed. While a general warranty deed was used for residential real estate sales and transfers, special warranty deeds are becoming more common and are more used in commercial transactions. A third type of deed, known as a bargain and sale deed, implies that the grantor has the right to convey title but makes no warranties against encumbrances; this type of deed is most used by court officials or fiduciaries that hold the property by force of law rather than title, such as properties seized for unpaid taxes and sold at sheriff's sale, or an executor.
A so-called quitclaim deed is not a deed at all—it is an estoppel disclaiming rights of the person signing it to property. In some jurisdictions, a deed of trust is used as an alternative to a mortgage. A deed of trust is not used to transfer property directly, it is used in some states — California, for example — to transfer title to land to a “trustee” a trust or title company, which holds the title as security for a loan. When the loan is paid off, title is transferred to the borrower by recording a release of the obligation, the trustee's contingent ownership is extinguished. Otherwise, upon default, the trustee will liquidate the property with a new deed and offset the lender's loss with the proceeds. Deed of arrangement – document setting out an arrangement for a debtor to pay part or all outstanding debts, as an alternative to bankruptcy. Deed of assignment – document in which a debtor appoints a trustee to take charge of property to pay debts or wholly, as an alternative to bankruptcy.
Sanad spelt as sunnud, was a deed granted to the rulers of native princely states in British India confirming them in their ruling position in return for their allegiance to the British Raj. Since the extinction of the royal bloodline would be a ground for annexation of a principality by the British, some rulers were granted sanads of adoption. Devised as a reward for loyalty to British rule in India after the Indian rebellion of 1857, such deeds gave a ruler the right to adopt chosen heirs from local noble families in case of lack of direct issue. Among the rulers that were given sanads of adoption, Takht Singh, Jaswant Singh of Bharatpur, as well as the rulers of Nagod State, Samthar State and the Chaube Jagirs are worth mentioning; the main clauses of a deed of conveyance are: Premises Parties clause – sets out the names and descriptions of parties Recitals – narrates in chronol
Real estate is "property consisting of land and the buildings on it, along with its natural resources such as crops, minerals or water. Also: the business of real estate, it is a legal term used in jurisdictions whose legal system is derived from English common law, such as India, Wales, Northern Ireland, United States, Pakistan and New Zealand. Residential real estate may contain either a single family or multifamily structure, available for occupation or for non-business purposes. Residences can be classified by. Different types of housing tenure can be used for the same physical type. For example, connected residences might be owned by a single entity and leased out, or owned separately with an agreement covering the relationship between units and common areas and concerns. Major categoriesAttached / multi-unit dwellings Apartment or Flat – An individual unit in a multi-unit building; the boundaries of the apartment are defined by a perimeter of locked or lockable doors. Seen in multi-story apartment buildings.
Multi-family house – Often seen in multi-story detached buildings, where each floor is a separate apartment or unit. Terraced house – A number of single or multi-unit buildings in a continuous row with shared walls and no intervening space. Condominium – A building or complex, similar to apartments, owned by individuals. Common grounds and common areas within the complex are shared jointly. In North America, there are rowhouse style condominiums as well; the British equivalent is a block of flats. Cooperative – A type of multiple ownership in which the residents of a multi-unit housing complex own shares in the cooperative corporation that owns the property, giving each resident the right to occupy a specific apartment or unit. Semi-detached dwellings Duplex – Two units with one shared wall. Detached dwellings Detached house or single-family detached house Portable dwellings Mobile homes or residential caravans – A full-time residence that can be movable on wheels. Houseboats – A floating home Tents – Usually temporary, with roof and walls consisting only of fabric-like material.
The size of an apartment or house can be described in square meters. In the United States, this includes the area of "living space", excluding the garage and other non-living spaces; the "square meters" figure of a house in Europe may report the total area of the walls enclosing the home, thus including any attached garage and non-living spaces, which makes it important to inquire what kind of surface area definition has been used. It can be described more by the number of rooms. A studio apartment has a single bedroom with no living room. A one-bedroom apartment has a dining room separate from the bedroom. Two bedroom, three bedroom, larger units are common. Other categoriesChawls Villas HavelisThe size of these is measured in Gaz, Marla and acre. See List of house types for a complete listing of housing types and layouts, real estate trends for shifts in the market, house or home for more general information, it is common practice for an intermediary to provide real estate owners with dedicated sales and marketing support in exchange for commission.
In North America, this intermediary is referred to as a real estate broker, or a real estate agent in everyday conversation, whilst in the United Kingdom, the intermediary would be referred to as an estate agent. In Australia the intermediary is referred to as a real estate agent or real estate representative or the agent
The Discovery doctrine is a concept of public international law expounded by the United States Supreme Court in a series of decisions, most notably Johnson v. M'Intosh in 1823. Chief Justice John Marshall explained and applied the way that colonial powers laid claim to lands belonging to foreign sovereign nations during the Age of Discovery. Under it, title to lands lay with the government whose subjects travelled to and occupied a territory whose inhabitants were not subjects of a European Christian monarch; the doctrine has been used to support decisions invalidating or ignoring aboriginal possession of land in favor of colonial or post-colonial governments. The 1823 case was the result of collusive lawsuits where land speculators worked together to make claims to achieve a desired result. John Marshall explained the Court's reasoning; the decision has been the subject of a number of law review articles and has come under increased scrutiny by modern legal theorists. The Doctrine of Discovery was promulgated by European monarchies in order to legitimize the colonization of lands outside of Europe.
Between the mid-fifteenth century and the mid-twentieth century, this idea allowed European entities to seize lands inhabited by indigenous peoples under the guise of discovery. In 1494, the Treaty of Tordesillas declared that only non-Christian lands could be colonized under the Discovery Doctrine. In 1792, U. S. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson declared that the Doctrine of the Discovery would extend from Europe to the infant U. S. government. The Doctrine and its legacy continue to influence American imperialism and treatment of indigenous peoples; the plaintiff Johnson had inherited land purchased from the Piankeshaw tribes. Defendant McIntosh claimed the same land, it appears that in 1775 members of the Piankeshaw tribe sold certain land in the Indiana Territory to Lord Dunmore, royal governor of Virginia and others. In 1805 the Piankeshaw conveyed much of the same land to William Henry Harrison, governor of the Indiana Territory, thus giving rise to conflicting claims of title. In reviewing whether the courts of the United States should recognize land titles obtained from Native Americans prior to American independence, the court decided that they should not.
Chief Justice John Marshall had large real estate holdings that would have been affected if the case were decided in favor of Johnson. Rather than recuse himself from the case, the Chief Justice wrote the decision for a unanimous Supreme Court. Marshall found that ownership of land comes into existence by virtue of discovery of that land, a rule, observed by all European countries with settlements in the New World; the United States was the true owner of the land because it inherited that ownership from Britain, the original discoverer. Marshall noted: On the discovery of this immense continent, the great nations of Europe... as they were all in pursuit of nearly the same object, it was necessary, in order to avoid conflicting settlements, consequent war with each other, to establish a principle which all should acknowledge as the law by which the right of acquisition, which they all asserted, should be regulated as between themselves. This principle was that discovery gave title to the government by whose subjects, or by whose authority, it was made, against all other European governments, which title might be consummated by possession....
The history of America, from its discovery to the present day, proves, we think, the universal recognition of these principles. Chief Justice Marshall noted the 1455 papal bull Romanus Pontifex approved Portugal's claims to lands discovered along the coast of West Africa, the 1493 Inter Caetera had ratified Spain's right to conquer newly found lands, after Christopher Columbus had begun doing so, but stated: "Spain did not rest her title on the grant of the Pope, her discussions respecting boundary, with France, with Great Britain, with the United States, all show that she placed it on the rights given by discovery. Portugal sustained her claim to the Brazils by the same title." Marshall pointed to the exploration charters given to John Cabot as proof that the British had operated under the doctrine. The tribes which occupied the land were, at the moment of discovery, no longer sovereign and had no property rights but rather held a right of occupancy. Further, only the discovering nation or its successor could take possession of the land from the natives by conquest or purchase.
The doctrine was cited in other cases as well. With Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, it supported the concept that tribes were not independent states but "domestic dependent nations"; the decisions in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe and Duro v. Reina used the doctrine to prohibit tribes from criminally prosecuting first non-Indians Indians who were not a member of the prosecuting tribe; the doctrine has been cited by the US Supreme Court as as 2005, in City of Sherrill, NY v. Oneida Nation: "Under the'doctrine of discovery...' Fee title to the lands occupied by Indians when the colonists arrived became vested in the sovereign-first the discovering European nation and the original states and the United States." The Doctrine of Discovery was promulgated by European monarchies in order to legitimize the colonization of lands outside of Europe. Between the mid-fifteenth century and the mid-twentieth century, this idea allowed European entities to seize lands inhabited by indigenous peoples under the guise of discovery.
In 1494, the Treaty of Tordesillas declared that only non-Christian lands could be colonized under the Discovery Doctrine. In 1792, U. S. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson declared that the Doctrine of the Discover
Fixture (property law)
A fixture, as a legal concept, means any physical property, permanently attached to real property Property not affixed to real property is considered chattel property. Fixtures are treated as a part of real property in the case of a security interest. A classic example of a fixture is a building, which—in the absence of language to the contrary in a contract of sale—is considered part of the land itself and not a separate piece of property. Speaking the test for deciding whether an article is a fixture or a chattel turns on the purpose of attachment. If the purpose was to enhance the land the article is a fixture. If the article was affixed to enhance the use of the chattel itself, the article is a chattel. Chattel property is converted into a fixture by the process of attachment. For example, if a piece of lumber sits in a lumber yard it is a chattel. If the same lumber is used to build a fence on the land it becomes a fixture to that real property. In many cases, the determination of whether property is a fixture or a chattel turns on the degree to which the property is attached to the land.
For example, this problem arises in the case of a trailer home. In this case the characterization of the home as chattel or realty will depend on how permanently it is attached—such as whether the trailer has a foundation; the characterization of property as a fixture or as chattel is important. In most jurisdictions, the law respecting the registration of security against debt, or proof that money has been lent on the collateral of property, is different for chattels than it is for real property. For example, in the province of Ontario, mortgages against real property must be registered in the county or region's land titles office. However, mortgages against chattels must be registered in the province-wide registry set up under the Personal Property Security Act. In the case of a trailer home, whether it is a fixture or chattel has a bearing on whether a real property mortgage applies to the trailer. For example, most mortgages contain a clause that forbids the borrower from removing or demolishing fixtures on the property, which would lower the value of the security.
However, there have been cases where lenders lend money based on the value of the trailer home on the property, where that trailer is removed from the property. A chattel mortgage granted to allow a person to purchase a trailer home could be lost if the trailer is attached to real property; the law regarding fixtures can cause many problems with property held under a lease. Fixtures put in place by the tenant belong to the landlord if the tenant is evicted from the property; this is the case if the fixture could have been removed by the tenant while the lease was in good standing. For example, a chandelier hung by the tenant may become the property of the landlord. Although this example is trivial, there have been cases where heavy equipment incorporated into a plant has been deemed to have become fixtures though it was sold as chattels; because the value of fixtures exceeds the value of the land they are affixed to, lawsuits to determine whether a particular item is a chattel or a fixture are common.
In one case in Canada, a provincial government argued that a huge earth dam was a chattel, as it was only held in place by gravity and not by any type of affixation. In a sale of land, fixtures are treated as part of the land, may not be removed or altered by the seller prior to the transfer of the land. Fixtures are known in civil law as essential parts. An important exception to the usual treatment of fixtures is the category of trade fixtures —chattels installed by a tenant on leased commercial property for their use in a trade or business; these may always be removed by the tenant, so long as any damage to the structure caused by the removal is repaid or repaired. For example, business signage, display counters, store shelves, liquor bars, machining equipment are firmly, if not permanently, attached to the building or land. However, they remain personal property and can be removed by the tenant, since they are part of the tenant's business; the economic logic behind this exception for trade fixtures reckons that if tenants could not remove them landlords would bear the responsibility of outfitting their tenants with such equipment and materials.
By deduction, therefore, a trade fixture is not a fixture at all. Its name is misleading, since a fixture, by definition, is real property that must remain with the real estate when a seller sells it or a tenant leaves her lease. A trade "fixture" is not personal property of the tenant; the landlord does have some protection. Any damage to the real property caused by the tenant’s removal of trade fixtures must be repaired or paid for by the tenant. If a trade fixture is not removed when the tenant moves out, those trade fixtures become the landlord’s property through the process of accession. For example, if a restaurant goes bankrupt and the owner forgoes his right and the expense of removing all the kitchen equipment, dining booths and other trade fixtures, those trade fixtures become the landlord's property. In this manner, they will no longer be trade fixtures and can become regular fixtures, hence real property. In the absence of agreement between the parties, the doctrine of fixtures, subject to statute, operates to resolve contests concerning title to objects.
Whether a chattel by its nature, becomes a fixture by virtue of all the circumstances, surrounding their annexation to land, depends upon the purpose and degree of annexation. Semble, it is a mixed question of fact and law, to be determined objectively, the subjective int
Treasure trove is an amount of money or coin, silver, plate, or bullion 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. The legal definition of what constitutes treasure trove and its treatment under law vary from country to country, from era to era; the term is often used metaphorically. Collections of articles published as a book are titled Treasure Trove, as in A Treasure Trove of Science; this was fashionable for titles of children's books in the early- and mid-20th century. Treasure trove, sometimes rendered treasure-trove means "treasure, found"; the English term treasure trove was derived from tresor trové, the Anglo-French equivalent of the Latin legal term thesaurus inventus. In 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 as trovey, trouve or trove.
The term wealth deposit has been proposed as a more accurate alternative. The term treasure trove is used metaphorically to mean a "valuable find", hence a source of treasure, or a reserve or repository of valuable things. Trove is used alone to refer to the concept, the word having been reanalysed as a noun via folk etymology from an original Anglo-French adjective trové. Treasure trove is therefore akin to similar Anglo-French or Anglo-French-derived legal terms whereby a post-positive adjective in a noun phrase has been reanalysed as a compound noun phrase, as in court martial, force majeure, Princess Royal. Phrases of this form are used either with the etymologically correct plural form or as rederived plural forms. In the case of treasure trove, the typical plural form is always treasure troves, with treasures trove found in historical or literary works. In Roman law, treasure trove was called thesaurus, defined by the Roman jurist Paulus as "vetus quædam depositio pecuniæ, cujus non extat memoria, ut jam dominum non habeat".
R. W. Lee, in his book The Elements of Roman Law, 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, 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, the fiscus, the city, or some other proprietor. According to Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius, 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 in England, France and Denmark. An interpretation of Roman law regarding treasure troves makes an appearance in the 13th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew; the Parable of the Hidden Treasure is told by Jesus of Nazareth to the crowds surrounding him and his disciples.
In the parable, the treasure trove is hidden in a field, open country and anyone could conceivably discover something hidden in that location. It's assumed that the present owner has no knowledge or memory of the treasure; the finder of the treasure kept the trove secret until he could raise capital to purchase the land holding the trove. Selling all he had, the finder purchased the land and unearthed the trove and, as the finder and owner, he was entitled to the entire trove. Jesus compared the kingdom of Heaven to the trove, being of greater value than all a person's earthly wealth and a wise investment that not everyone understands at first, it has been said that the concept of treasure trove in English law dates back to the time of Edward the Confessor. Under the common law, treasure trove was defined as gold or silver in any form, whether coin, plate or bullion, hidden and rediscovered, which no person could prove he or she owned. If the person who had hidden the treasure was known or discovered it belonged to him or her or persons claiming through him or her such as descendants.
To be treasure trove, an object had to be – that is, more than 50% – gold or silver. Treasure trove had to be hidden with animus revocandi. If an object was lost or abandoned, it belonged either to the first person who found it or to the landowner according to the law of finders, that is, legal principles concerning the finding of objects. For this reason, the objects found in 1939 at Sutton Hoo were determined not to be treasure trove; the Crown had a prerogative right to treasure trove, 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, indeed of anyone who had acquired