22 Ark.i ifiE STATE . OF 4g§ PERM, 1861.] kids 'et' al. ■;;s. brizeitan: EADS ET AL. ■iiS. A Steam bO rid eatid having been sunk in the MiSsissippi river for a fieribd of nearlY thirtY , years; and during that time, an island havirtt; been formed, by the ehanging of the current of the river, over the wreck, and the oWnets haying made no . effort, nor done any .act.,showing that a design was entertained to save the prOperty, the law would imply an abandonment' of it. The finder of a Wreck; a g such, would be entitled tO the proPerty as ■Switer, or to its possession as salvor; and would be protected from the interference of third persons with his posseseion. -Property is'said to be abandoned when it is thrown aWay, Or ita inasSession Yoiuntarily foreaken hy the OWner, in whieh ettie it Will beCOnt the property of the first 'occupant. When involuntarily lost, or left without hope or expectation of again acquiring it, it becomes the property of;the, finder-, subject to the Superior elaiM Of the oWner, on the payment of salvage in adnira1tu ca:See. The Oceupation• or posseseion of properq lost; abandOned; or without an owner, to. constitute a good title by occupancy, must depend upon an actUal taking of . the propertY, and with the , intent to reduce it to possession': And' So where the - elairaant had Marked treeS on the bank Of thO iiveir ; and Placed' bnOYS over the - i-7-reck, 6; indicate' the iilaCe-wh'e lay—these acts only indicate a desire Or intention to appropriate the property, and are not-7 as placing , a boat over the , wreck,_with means to raiae it, and with persistent efforts to do . so, would be—Such acts of pos-. seSSion as the - laW WOuld notice and p'rotea. • Whete' an injunction haS• been issded and served uNi-/- the d a ef t e i n t d ; the' court may well impose a fine upon the defendant, for contempt, in . dis7. obeying the process of the court; but not as damages to the complainant fOr an Y. Stippbae-d injiir c'On`gecpie•ne•e- of slid,' di'sobedieriCe. Appdal• kissiSSifipt CihIit dat' Hon: GEohoE FoWLEa and- S'ilLIAVEit2,‘ foi the' apVellaif' Appellee a&citiiied-' ne■ right' td the' hy' liii dfiCavery out possession. 2 Bl. Com . 78, 258, 345; Just. Inst.' Lib."
500 CASES IN 1HE SUPREME dOITRT [22 Ark. Eads et al. vs. Brazeltod: [JANUARY tit. 1 sec. 13; Pierson vs. Post, 1 Caines' Cases, 175; -Wallis vs. Mason, 3 Binn. Rep. 546; Bro. Ab. title Property, 37; 7 John. Rep. 16; 20 l. b. 75; Cooper's Just. p. 443, n. 18. WATKINS & GALLAGHER, for appellee. As between the parties here, (the defendants making no claim to the property as its owners, but admitting the complete abandonment thereof,) the complainant is entitled to all the rights and remedies of owner, by virtue of his finding and possession. Goods actually lost by the owner and unreclaimed, or designedly abandoned, belong to the finder. 1 Black. Com . 296; 1 Stewart's Ala. Rep. 320; Strange, 505. In the case at bar, there can be no. question as to . the property being abandoned and derelict. Wyman vs. Hurlburt, 12 Ohio, 81. By the finding, and his acts towards taking possession, Bra-zelton became the owner of the wreck—and it did not require, under the circumstances of the case, that he should take it into actual manual possession to complete and perfect his title, so that he did not abandon that finding. He did not abandon it, for the proof is tbat he fixed his buoys to it, etc., marking out its locality, not only to himself, but to the public; and remained near it, making preparations to work the -wreck as best he might, on the first opportunity to do so, with the means then under his control. This finding, and these acts, gave him the ownership of, or property in the wreck; and the right to uni!,e by actual seizure, the right of possession to his right of property, no one could gainsay; until he had manifested his intention not to unite the two rights; which he never did, but, on the contrary, manifested his intentions of uniting the two rights by preparing to take actual and excluSive possession as Soon as his circumstances, and the river would permit. At any rate, the finding coupled with the acts done by Bra-zelton towards and with the intent of taking actual possession of the wreck, are sufacient to vest the property in him as the finder. 1 Parion 'on Cont. 443; Parson on Mer. Law, 50; 2 Bl. Corn. p. 9:
„.. . 22 Ark:] ' AA' THE STATE OF A.HKANSAS. 561 TEali, 1861.] •Eads et al: vs. Brazelton. Mr. Justice FAIRCHILD delivered the opinion of the Court. When things that become property from being appropriated are the property of nobody, are in a state of negative community, the first finder may ieduce them to possession ' , which is a good claim, and under the name of title by occupancy is regarded as the foundation of all property. 2 Bile's Com. 3, 258; 1 Bouv. Am. L. 194, No. 491; Pothier Droit De Propriete, Nos. 20, 21; La. Civil Code, Art's 3375, 3376. Hence, wild animals, that are not property in their natura I condition, may be captured, will belong to the first taker by oc-, cupancy, and will so belong while in the keeping of the taker, or person claiming under him, or while in domestication. 2 Kent. 348; Coop. Just. Lib. II. Tit. I. sec.. 12; 1 Bouv. .4m. L. 194, No. 492; La. Civil Code, Art. 3379. the finder of things that have never been appropriated; or that have been abandoned by a former occupant, may take them into his possession as his own. property; and the finder of any thing casually fost is its rightful occupant against all but the real owner: 1 Blks. Com. 295; 2 lb. 3; 9, 402 ; '16 Vin. Abr., Possession F. 3; 1 Domat's Civil Law, by Cushing, 856, No. 2155,; Coop. Just. Lib. II, Tit. 1. sec. 18; La. Civil Code, Art's 3,383, 3,384; Pothior Droit De Propriete, Nos. 58, 60, 267; Armory vs. Delamirie, 1 Strange, 505; Brandon vs. Hunts-ville Bank, 1 Stew. 342, 344; Eastman vs. Harl i' s, 4 La. Ann. R. 194. The bill in this case is founded upon a right of occupancy which Brazelton, the plaintiff, insists was vested in him bY his discovery of the wreck of the steam-boat America, and by his intentions and acts relating thereto. Because this right wa; not respected by the defendants, partners and servants of' a firm of wreckers doing business in the Mississippi river and its tributaries, under the style of Eads & Nelson, Brazelton filed his bill on the chancery side of the Circuit Court of Mississippi county, to obtain the protection of the court, to relieve him front the interference of 'the defendants in' his own intended
• •-• „ • r CASES 114- TRE SUPREME COURt 502 [22 Ark. taa d i. vs. Br a' zeliOn. [JANUARY labors, to recover the property in the Wreck; ànd tO Obtain cbm-pensation for what the5r . had taken therefroM. • Frorn what iS before US it inay be takeri as shoWn in the case that, in November, 1827, the boat named sank in the Mississip-pi river; within the limit's a Mississippi connty ; .. that, of her • cargo, shot and bundles of bar lead of an unascertained quantity; and lead in pigs to about the number of three thousand; rejudined in the river, Wholly abaridOned by the owners; that Brazelton, having information Of the Place where the boat sank, proceeded; in December, 1554, to asceitain its exact lecality in the bed of the river; with the VieW of raising the rniken lead ; that; , in Janua'ry; 1855, he , arrived at ihe vidinity the wreck; with his diving beat, to' Carry out his intention, arid fastened a buoy to a weight • that rested' Upon the wrecl; with the expectation Ol Putting his boat oVer it th:e neXt day, but that he was . detained' . bY other biisinei g , a' .nd by the difficulties arid dangers of the WOrk in the existing: state ef Water,' With bcia'6 like hig ,. and by the neeessity for Making rePairs upen and apparatus for raising the cargd,. till the defendants,' , uion! the 28th . of _September, .1:855, Cans:ed one Of their boats to stop a;t the' sbore near the wreck, to search for and . find . it, to place their beat oVer it, and to cOnimence raiing the lead. The quantity of lead • rai§ed by . the defendan4 was stated in their ansWer, and apPlying' the price thereto, as shown by the evidence, its value was found to be , four thousand, five hundred and seven dollarS' and ninety-'g ik dents; for Which snm the Cimrt below gave a decree; perpetuated' the preliminary injtinction WhiCh was granted at the beginning of the' suit', and" which arrested th,-.! deiendants in their labOr upon the lead: After the injunction hd' been seived,' alid the defendants, hi' ObedienCe thereto,' hed" withdraAin their bOat frOm fhe hd while' the' plaintiff in ' his . tiirn,` wag" engaged' in* bringing, Up the' lead reft by the' defendantS, t . h ey b „ ronght their he'at back near -Co the pMintiff's" boat' and anChored, thereby obstr . ucti . m . z hia'oPertionS . ,' for which' tivO" of' the' defehdantS that V;Tre . within the jurisdiction of the court, were brought before it for contempt
22 Ark.] OF THE • STATE1OF AR JCA N , S -4.§ 503, TEEM, 1861.] Eads et al. vs. Brazelton. in disobeying , the injunction, and , were fined one,lthousand larS; Which was,. by order of the — cOurt, 'Paid to the plaintiff for his damages from the, obstruction. The defendants appealed, and contend here that the injunction WaS illegally granted, for being granted by . the judge in ,ya7. ur! " catmn, that it was issued against acts for which a legal remedy waS • the only proper One to be . pUrAied, and_ upon a case that , failed to shoW 'a right to the Plaintiff to any relief, and that the decree • I is for a sum' too large, in bein , g fo ' r the gross value of the lead • 1' ' 1• • without any deduction for the expense of its . 3 . _I . being raise d. QUes- • E ons are ' also made upon the testimony . The foregoing itunmary,i at ho uhg it may embrace all, or the more important of the facts upon which t _ he injunction was obtained, and which must be the grounds of final relief, is in-. tended, as was in effect stated, to be a recapitulation of facts, either admitted or establiShed, and not a statement of allegations that were not proved or were disproved, or of testimony that Was insufficient to establish ' the positiohs -for , which if was adduced, Or that Was neutralized or overthrown 15y counter evi-dende.' But as the princiPal ground' of controversy , in the:case, and One that May supercede all others, is Brazelton's right of oc- ., , -;. • . ; - cupancy Of the wreck by finding, and as 'that may depend upon its posSeSsion, the pleadings which allege a:nd deny ihe Tossession, and the facts relative to this issue may well be subjected to closer scrut „ in y . When Braz ; e lto • n found the wreck he traced lines to it from El 1." )7? t• • different poiffts On the Arkansas side of the river, so that tlieiF intersection wiuld show the - situation of the wreck, and the lines Weree indicated by marks upbn ilie ,trees. It was upon the return of Brazelton from St. Louis wiih his bell boat that a float or biwy• was placed by Brazeiton over ifie wreck, and this was :•• $1`' 1' 0; T-. ir" done with the intention of signifying , the . place to _Which the diving boat WaS to be dropped the nex morning. It was not to be expected that such objects would remain .permanent ffx-• , c1=;11.1 •1 i 1,, •• tures, aS the' wreck was in the _main channel of the , river, and it is evideiif that Brazelton conSidered them as ,.. E 1,., uid n es „ to the sit-1
,§o4 CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT [22 Ark. Eads et al. vs. Brazelton. [JANUARY nation of the wreck, as the marked trees were, as he stated to Seth Daniel, in the presence of Reese Bowen, that it would make no difference if they should be washed away, as he could find the wreck from the ranges of his lines. • Brazelton does not pretend to have put his boat over the wreck, or to haVe had any claim to the wreck but by occupancy, which depended upon his finding it, upon his providing means for easy approaches to it by land-parks, and flOats upon water, and upon his being in the neighborhood of the wreck from January to the last of Sep-tember, without any other appropriation of the wreck, but with a continual assertion of his claim, and with the intention of making it good by future action. This, .doubtless, he would have done in the winter of 1855, had not the sinking of the steamboat Eliza afforded the opportunity of , other work to which he confined himself till June. Then he would have applied himself to the America, but the periodical rise of the river at that season prevented him frOm so doing, and when he was nearly ready, with . his boat and machinery in order for effective labor, with favorable water for work, safe from rafts and flat and coal boats, the Submarine,' No. 4, belonging to the defendants, passed him on the 28th Of September,*and within two days was placed over the wreck, and . ihenceforward the defendants were its occupants in fact, and claimed to be so by right. If Brazelton's boat had been accompanied with steam power as was the Submarine, No. 4, the rise of the water in June, or the season of floating boats and rafts would not have been uncontrollable obstructions to his desire to.save the lead of • the America; and he could, while the boat of the defendants was hovering in the vicinity of the . wreck, have placed his . own boat over it, and thereby acquired a posSession which the custom of the river, as alluded to in this case, would have respected as ' a right. But it is for us to declare the Jegal effect of what he did, and not .speculate upon the possible result of a , different course of action, which lie_ might have pursued had wind and water permitted, and if ° other business had not called him . from the prosecution of his original purpose.
22 Ari:.] • OF THE STATE OF ARKAI4SAS 505 TERM, 18 E 0 a•ds et al. 1 vs. Brdzel ion., • But before examining the law of possession of goods claimed by 'OccUpancy, which is . the :question of the case, two sorts of allegations' in the bill may be noticed, which were conceived by the , plaintiff to have an effect upon the case, but of which we should need to be convinced, had 'not the failure of his proofs to sustain the allegations made the effort to convince us unnecessary'. They relate to the abandonment or loss of the lead in the riVer beyond the memory, knowledge or information of boatmen or residents of Mississippi county ; and to the alleged' intent of the • defendants to overreach the plaintiff in the , occupancy of the wreck, and, in finding it, 'to Use 'his marks upon the trees. Neither the sinking of the America nor its locality seems to have been so obscurely remembered as the bill supposes. Captain Eads, one of the defendants, told the witness, Cunningham in 1843, accOrding to his recollection that the America was under the tow , head often mentioned in the case, which the witness afterwards was satisfied to have been the fact, from his acquaintance with the wreck after the tow head ' and island were washed away, and the wreck was - left in the main river. Cunningham, in 1853, sounded for the wreck, and found it as ' he believed. Captain Swan, who waS upon the America when she sunk, and who had been familiar with the river at the place if sinking from that time, in 1827, till 1854, and who communi-mted to Brazelton his information of the situation of the wreck, leposed that the bank has in all the time mentioned changed rut very little, though the bars haVe been continually changing, md that from marks upon the bank he knew where the Amer-. ca was,. and after the island which had covered 'the wreck tbout twenty years, was washed away, he is of the impression hat, from the break of the water where he euppOsed the Amer-ca to be, he could upon a clear bright day have pointed out the dtuation of the wreck. From the description of the place given )3, Captain Swan to Brazelton, he was able to find the wreck, Ls he afterwards told Swan that his supposition that the break n the water was caused by the wreck, had been 'veri ed. And
- 506 CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT [22 -A-rk. Eads et al. vs. Brazelton. [JANuARY • Captain Swan further sald that . the . pilots of the present time were as welladvised, as a matter of news, of , . the ioss of .the . ; America in the vicinity . 1 ;vIere the . wreck lay, as the pilots were when she W a S sunk. Josiah Sellers, who Was a steam-boatman at . the time the America was lost, and who passed the wreck a few days after her loss, and . who both in going down and . returning . up the riVer stepped at the wreck, made such observations that, when the bar was washed aWay that had proteaed the shore and hid the wreck, he Was satisfied that the America was in the channel of the river, and that the - ruffling 'of the water, which he , and Captain Swan saw in the river at that point,. was caused by the Wreak 'of • the Atherida. And: he infornied 'Capt. hdds in 1853 or in 1854, and he believes in both of these years, , of . the situation of the wreck, giving him the land marks and the break of the water' as indieations Where th find it, as Swan did to Brazel-ton. • S . o, in . Fe . bruary, 185 , 5, CaPtain Turner found . the wreck, and he says withont the assistance of Brazelton's Marks. The witness, Garrett,, also refer . r ed William H. Johnson to ne-groes Who were probably living on the river when the beat was sunk, a , nd Captain l i-eaves, of . ' " t he SUbmarine, , 4, almOst ad- mits 'that the information given hini by negroes that stood nPen the bank When he was searching the Water for the wreck hastened its finding.. . • Fro , m • these facts, and from every thing . in . the case, we think there could have been but little ' difficulty -in finding the wre . ck • aft , er the island that' had * so Jong coUcealed it, was washed away, and the labor or pod fortune of Brazelton in ascertaining its.locality affords no reason for assigning it to him as his property, aside from the legal consequences of its possession, even if courts had the power of , such . assignment, Ni hi ch , we disclaim; and which we do hot understand Brannon to claim but by implication. , With reference to the tree marks of Brazelton it may be said that there is no satisfadtory evidence that they were Used On the iiart of the 'defendants in' finding' the *reck.
22 Ark.] OF THE.STATE OF ARKANSAS. 5p7.: TERM, 1861.] Eads et al. vs. Brazelton. Andrew Skelton says that one of the divers of the defendants shoi4d . him Marks upen tree s ' .„ , b • at wh . at or v.diose marks we do not knoW. George Young relates that the morning after the boat landed near "the wreek, the Captain hired a: negro to show him Brazelton's Marks, while JOhnson Reeves says that on 'the same Morning the Captain Offered the negrii . Money to . show him where the , Wreck lay. The language of • the 'Captain to the negro, if ihe two witnesses 'were testifying to:the same conversation, -was . very, •differently underStood by thein, and We' have DO ' means of testing their comparative cM : rectness. . Captain Neaves in his answer denies this, and Johnson, a. diver, who seems to be Most implicated in . the talk On shore at GaiTett's, and . with Yoiing, and Who was referred to the negroes, poSitively denies that he knew Of Brazelton having made any. marks, di being in the vicinity , ; asserts that he was on shore looking for Marks, he said, and stpposed Turner to have made. fie, Turner, had found the Wreck while in the employ of the defendants, and had made a chart which is alluded to in the case is a guide to: the' boat in 'finding the wreck. The evidence too is abundant that the defendants, or Capt. Eads, .one of theth, had 'knowledge of the' place of the wreck, md their aver a Peisistent intention to have taken up the lead, vhich the allegations of the bill against them as being extensive, letermined and monopolizing • wreckers, and the deposition of, ['tuner, confirm. It is : not established that the defendants knew that Brazelton vas about to work upon the Anierica, although a witness so . in-erred from the conversation of the Oa ' ptain and others , of the, oat, while there is no • room for suspicion that they intended to, aterfere with any occupancy of the boat , by Brazelton, and the r hole case is, that they did not - do so according to their under-tanding of Brazelton's right. But what that right was remains to be determined Notwithstanding the point made by the ' defendant; that Bra-31ton had no dght to the lead which the ' law wonld prot'ect, cing the property of the original owners of the cargo, there is •
508 CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT [22 Ark. Eads et al. vs. Brazelion. [JANUARY no room for doubt that the lead was abandoned by its owners; and even without the positive testimony of an owner of the boat and cargo in affirmation of the fact, the law would so imply from the term of the loss, and from the fact of its having been covered by an island formed upon it, which sustained trees grown to the height of thirty or forty feet. All reasonable hope of acquiring the property must have been given up from the nature of the case; and the evidence shows that during the two years that intervened between the sinking of the boat and' i ts being covered b y the tow head and island, no effort was made or design entertained to save that part of the cargo that was abandoned when the high water interrupted the labor of saving it, that was prosecuted for two weeks after the loss of the boat, save that an excluded deposition mentions that one hundred and sixteen pigs of lead were afterwards got out by residents of the neighborhood: Having saved the specie that was on board belonging to the United States, the Airs and one-half of the six hundred pigs of lead, and a part of the shot, with which articles the boat was laden, and the boilers and machinery of the boat,. the owners of the America seem to have contented themselves therewith; . and to have wholly abandoned the remaining shot and lead. Unlike The Barefoot, 1 Eng. Law & Eq. Rep. 664, which was the loss of lead and iron in smacks, in which Dr. Lushington held, that the property was left but not abandoned, because the place of the property was well known, and because the property was unmovable until recovered by human skill, this case, from the length of time that had passed, from the shifting nature al the bars and channel of the river in Plumb point bend, as well as from the testimony of Captains Swan and Sellers, of William H. Johnson, and of Mr. Ruble, an owner of the boat, shows not only that the lead in the wreck was left, but that it was abandoned. But whether the property when saved would have been the -property of Brazelton, or of an occupant, or of the owner, would not give right to the defendants to resist the suit of Brazelton: for if he were a finder of the wreck, as such he
22 Ark.] OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. 509 Tuint, 1861.] Eads et al. vs. Braze1ton. • would be entitled to the property as owner, or to its ,possession as saivor, and would be protected from the inteeerence of the defendants or other . persons. And for this reason decisions iii admiralty upon the conflicting claims of salvors to the possession of deserted property are authorities to be considered in the settlement of the pending controversy. Property is "said to be abandoned when it is thrown away, or its possession is voluntarily forsaken by the owner, in which case it will become the property of :the first occupant; or when it is involuntarily lost or left without the hope and expectation of again acquiring it, and then it becomes the property of the finder, subject to the superior claim of the owner; except that in salvage cases, by the admiralty law, the finder may hold session until he is paid his compensation, or till the property is sui;mitted to legal jurisdiction for the ascertainment of the compensation. 2 Blk. Cora. 9; 1 Bouv. Am. L. 195, No. 494; Coop. Just. Lib. II, I. S. 46; Abbott on Shipping 555. Am. note; Woolrych on Waters 15; Rowe vs. Berg, 1 Mas.. 373; Lewis vs. The Elizabeth & Jane, Ware's Rep. 43; The Bee, ib. 344, 345; The St. Perrg, Bee's adm. 82; The Mary, 2 Whea. 126 and note (A.)'; Steamb'oat J. P. Leathers and cargo, Newb. A. D. 325; Mar-vin on Wreck and Salvage, s. 124, 125. Some authorities refer to things found at sea as belonging to the finder, in distinction from wreck, that is, goods lost at sea and floated to land, or in general terms excluding the sense of derelict as in Maritime cases, or as distinguished froni custom and statutory law, and in extreme cases property wholly derelict and abandoned has been held to belong to the finder against the former owner. Woolrych on Waters 14; Constable's Case, 5 Coke 108, b; Marvin on Wreck & Salvage, sec. 131, note; 1 Bouv. Am. L. 196, No. 496; Wyman vs. Hurlburt, 12 Ohio 87. The occupation or possession of property iost, abandoned or without an owner, must depend upon an actual taking of the property and with the intent to reduce its to possession. The intent may not be , that this possession shall be an absolute or perpetual appropriation of the -oroperty to the use of the finder,
510, CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT [22 Ark. Ea.ds et al. vs. Brazelton. [JANUARY it may be subject to the claim of the, real, owner, the possession may be taken for his exclusive good, or it may. be . taken as a means of subsistence or, accumulation, according to the course of business of the parties. to this suit. But in any case, title by occupancy Must rest upon intentional actual possession of the thing occupied. Such is the meaning of the Commentaries, iron; which are the following extracts "The acquisition of, things tangible by accupancy, must be made corpore et animo, that is, by an outward act signifying an intention to possess; The necessity of an outward: act to commence holding a thing in dominion, is , founded on the principle that . a will or intention cannot have legal effect, without an outward. act declaring that intention; and, on, the other hand, no man can be said to have the dominion over a thing which he has , no intention of possessing as his. Therefore a man. cannot deprive . others of their, right to take possession . of vacant property by merely considering it as, his, without actually appropriating it to himself and- if he. possesses it without any will of appropriating it* to himself, as in the case of an idiot, it cannot be considered as having ceased : to- be res nullius. The outward act or possession need not, however, be manual ; for any, species of possession, or as the ancients expressed it, custodia, is in general a sufficient appropriation." 1 Bouv.. Am. L. No. 495. Possession in the civil law. "implies three things ; . a just cause of possessing, as master,. the intention to possess in this quality, and detention * * without the intention there is no possession * * *-. Without , the detention the intention is useless, and does noir make the possession." 1 Domat's civil Law, by Cushing 859, No. 2161. "The. possession of the things which we acquire by their falling into our hands, such as that whidi we find * * * * is acquired by„ the bare fact of our laying our hands upon them"—Ib. No. 2162. "Found—means, not merely discovered, but taken up." Notes to Coop. Just. 458. "Treasures naturally belong to the . finder ; .that is, to . him who moves
..A2 Ark.] 'OF THE STATE OE ARKANSAS. 511 1861.] Eads et al. vs. Brazelton. them . ‘ from , ' the place , where they are, and ''sectites them ;" lb. 461. • The law is happily; stated in the 'edi'de'- of touisiaha thus 'To -be : able' to ' acquire pc6session of ' property, tiVo distinct things' are 'requisite : 1. The 'intention d of 'pessessing a.§ owne'r; 2. - The corporeal 'possession of the tthin . " La. Civil Code Art. 3399. • Pothier, with hiS 'characteristic' accuracy - and perspiOnity,'' has Tully : stated the law upon this : subject, 'and the rule' aa stated Iv him is to this effect; that to 'acquire pos ' session of' a thing the-re must te a desire to 'possess it,i'joined "to" a i 'prehension 'of the thing. , 'See . in full Nos:' 39 to 42 & 55 of his' Traite.-DeLa. Pdssession,-& . Nos. 63 -cf. 64 of his Traite 'Du Droit De Propriete; • Marvin on-Wreck & Salvage s. 427. • Such are the doctrinea of the Louisiana code,' of the COmniCh-tators upon 'the Common, Roman, FrenCIV and 'Admiralty 'law, and applying them to the facts \ of this case, we' hold' that Bra-zelton . never attained to the posSession 'of the wreck lot the Amer-ica, 'that he therefore had 'no title tO it by OCCupancy; 41ad'ho 'right upon which judicial protection could operate, none which the coUrt below should have recognized. He had considered the-Wreck as his as its finder, but' had not actually appropriated it tO himself ; his intentiOn'to possess was useksa without . dete ' ntiOn'of ; the property; he had not found+ the lead in the required sense of discoVering it, and taking it up; he' was not a finder, in 'that he had not moved : the wrecked property, or secured it; he had the intention of possessing it as'owner' ; but did not acquire its coipdre'al possession ; to his desire . to posSess there' was not ! jOined a prehension' of the thing. Brazelton's act of possession need hot have been . mannal, he' was not obliged to- take the wreck• or . the lead between' his hands, 'he might , take such possession' Of them" . as their' nature-and sitta-. tion permitted; but that his circumstanCes should give a legal character to , his acts, making that to be pOSsession which the law declares not to be possession, assumes more than a cOurt can sanction. -Marking trees that ' eitended ' -'ddross the wreck,
CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT [22 Ark. 512 Eads et al. vs. BrazeRon. [JANUARY affixing temporary buoys to it were not acts of possession; they only indicated Brazelton's desire or intention to appropriate the property. Placing his boat over the wreck, with the means to raise its valuables, and with persistent efforts directed to raising the lead, would have been keeping the only effectual guard over it, would have been the only warning that intruders, that is, other longing occupants would be obliged to regard, would have been such acts of possession as the law would notice and protect. If. . Brazelton in the winter of 1355, deferred raising the lead to wredk the steamboat Eliza, he was free to do so, but must abide the legal consequences of his choiee. If afterwards he 'could not work in the main channel of the river, owing to high water, strong wind, or to damaged boats and rigging, his ill f6rtune could not bend the law to his circumstances, nor could he with right N y am off the defendants from the occupancy of the America, when they were as willing "and more able than himself to raise the lead in her hold. The following adjudged cases may have a bearing upon this • case, and ilhistrate the general principles of the last cited authorities: In Pierson vs. Post, 3 Gaines Rep. the plaintiff was pursuing a fox and had not got it within his control; and the defendant was held not to be liable for killing it. The plaintiff had established no claim by occupancy. His intention against the fox was unmistakable, but his act of possession was incomplete. Marking a bee-tree was a more emphatic claim against the bees than Brazelton's marks were upon the wreck, but was not sufficient to vest a right in the finder. Gillet vs. Mason, 7 Jhs. 17. And when one had found bees and had got leave of the owner 31. -the tree in which they were to cut it, and takes the bees, he acquired no property in the bees, he had not taken possession of them. Ferguson vs. Miller, 1 Cow. 244. It is not trespass to take wild bees or honey. Wallace vs. Mease, 3 Binn. 553. A deer had been wounded and followed with dogs for six
22 Ark.] OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. 513 TERM, 1861.] Eads et al, vs. Brazelteri. miles, and the pursuit was given over for the night by the plaintiff, though his dogs continued the chase the defendant and the plaintiff seized the deer together, but, because this did not show an occupancy of the deer by the plaintiff, he could not recover the skin and venison of the defendant, who killed the deer. Buster vs. Newkirk, 20 Jhs. 'f 5. The next authority is from an accomplished admiralty Judge, several of whose decisions are cited in this opinion : "The title which is acquired to property 1y finding, is a species of occupation ; and it is laid down as a rule of law, by the civilians, that the mere discovery and sight of the thing, is not sufficient to vest in the finder a right of property in the thing found. Pothier, Traite de la Propriete No. 63. His title is acquired by possession, and this must be an actual possession. He cannot take and keep possession by an act of the will, oculis et affecta, as he may when property is transferred by consent and the possession given by a symbolical delivery. To consummate his title there must be a corporeal prehension of the thing." The Amethyst, Davies Rep. 23. . .Prom the foregoing quotation may be seen the inapplicability of the citation from Parson's Mere. Law's, in the argument for Brazelton, as it relates to the delivery of bulky articles, the right of which is passed by sale. The reference to the next case, except the extract from the o p inion of the -chancellor, is tak z en from the printed brief furnished for the defendant. The case of Deklyn vs. Davis is like the present case. About the veal ; 1871, the British frigate "the Hussar" sank in the East river in sixty or seventy feet of water. The bill averred that she "was abandoned and derelict," and that "with much labor and expense" the complainants, in the summer of 1823, had discovered the "precise situation of the ship—had fastened chains around her, which they secured to floating timbers, and raised her about ten feet from her bed, and perfectly occupied the vessel, and continued their occupancy, by which she became their property. That at the approach of
-514 CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT [22 Ark. Eads et al. vs , . Brazelton. [JANUARY winter they de . sisted from their labors, by reason of the weather, designing to resume- the work in the following season. That the occupancy of the complainants continued until the defendants, with knowledge of complainant's rights, on the twenty-second of March, with vessel, etc., moored and anchored over and around the sunken ship." An injunction was granted, restraining the defendants "from the further interruption of the complainants" and also enjoining them "forthwith to remove the sloops." .• "The defendants set up that the preperty was not abandoned or derelict when complainants took possession in 1823 ; that defendants, at great cost, had made preparation to raise the vessel; that they had "ascertained the precise situation and position of said frigate, took possession thereof, and to occupy the same, made their marks and ranges on the adjoining shore so as to identify the spot and enable them to commence their opera-tiohs thereupon at the opening of the following season.. That the complainants, "in the absence of the defendants and their men, fraudulently and forcibly took possession of the frigate:" and afterwards Davis, in the absence of Deklyn and his men1. took possession of the frigate by anchoring sloops over her and surrounding her with machinery. "The right claimed by each of the contending parties is the right of occupancy. Both parties have prepared means and have taken measures to raise the sunken frigate; neither party has yet effected that object ; and such being the state of the' facts, the court says: "Neither party has yet obtained an actual or exclusive possession of the derelict subject. * * * The complainants allege in their bill that their acts of occupancy have obtained for them a title; and the defendants, by their answer, insist that their acts preparatory to an actual possession, have been such as to give them a prior and superior right." . But if the acts of the Complainant Deklyn did not constitute any "actual or exclusive occupancy," and if the acts of the defendant Davis were merely 'preparatory to an actual posses-
22 Ark.] OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. 515 TERM, 1861.] Eads et al. vs. Brazelton. sion,' . much less did the acts of Brazelton constitute such occupancy: Hopkins, Ch. Rep. 135. The next two cases referred to, and from one of which a lengthy extract is given, were decided by ,TUDGE BETTS of New York, a very high authority in the ' natters treated upon ; "* * *• "but it is in consonance with the, established principles of mar-"itime law to hold those beginning a salvage service, and who are in the successful prosecution of it entitled to be regarded "as the meritorious salvors of whatever is preserved, and enti-"tled to the sole possession of the property." The Brig John Gilpin, Olcott's Rep. Adm. 86. "An impression seems to have obtained, that one who .finds derelict property under water or afloat, acquires a right ,to it by discovery, which can be maintained by a kind of continued claim, without keeping it in possession or applying constant eNertions for its preservation and rescue. There is no foundation fOr such notion. The right of a salvor result ' s from the fact that he has held in actual possession, or has kept near what was lost or abandoned by the owner, or placed in a dangerous exposure to destrUction, with the means at command to preserve and save it, and that he is actually employing those means to that end. "The finder thus becomes the legal possessor, and acquires a privilege against the preperty for his salvage services which takes precedence of all other title." Lewis vs. The Elizabeth Jane Ware, 41 ; The Bee, Ware, 332 ; The- St. Peter Bee, 82. " * * * The fact that property is found at sea or on the -coast in peril, without the presence of any one to protect it, gives the finder a right to take it in his possession ; and the law connects with such right the obligation to . use the means he has at contrel, and with all reasonable promptitude, to save it for the owner. Re can therefore be no otherwise clothed with the character of salvor than whilst he is in the occupancy of the property, and employing the necessary means for saving it. "Notorious possession, with the avewal of the object of such possession, are cardinal requisites to the creation or mainten
•16 CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT [22 Ark.• Eads et al. vs. Braze1ton. [JANUARY ance of the privileges of a salvor ; where they do not exist, any other person may take the property with all the advantages of the first finder." The Schooner J ohn Wnrtz, Olcott Rep. Adm. 469-471. Marvin on Wreck and Salvage, s. 128. No reasoning, no comment, can make more imperative the action of this court than it is Made by the foregoing cases and authorities, taken 'in connection with the facts of the case, or *ith the allegations of the bill alone: The decree of the Circuit Court of Mississippi county sitting in chancery is reversed ; and the case must be sent down with instructions for the dissolution of the injunction, and that a decree be entered for the recovery of the thousand dollars, with interest, that were assigned to Brazelton as his damages for being obstructed by the defendants in his work upon the wreck after the service of the injunction upon the defendants Patrick & Neaves. If the fine inflicted had been considered in the court below, and had been punishment for the contempt of the two defendants' disobedience to the process of the court, a different decree would have been called for upon this branch of the case. The defendants below, the appellants here, must recover their costs in this court, bUt to show our disapprobation of the conduct of defendants Patrick & Neaves in disregarding the process of the court, we direct that the costs in the court below be paid by them.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.