Intresting 1920 Attitude: "Finders Keepers"

jeff of pa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Dec 19, 2003
85,465
59,223
🥇 Banner finds
1
🏆 Honorable Mentions:
1
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Great Falls daily tribune. (Great Falls, Mont.), 16 Nov. 1920.

If you don't know it's there, It's not Yours :laughing7:

1.jpg
2.jpg
3.jpg

Great Falls daily tribune. (Great Falls, Mont.) 1895-1921, November 16, 1920, Image 1 « Chronicling America « Library of Congress
 

Last edited:

ARC

Gold Member
Aug 19, 2014
37,157
130,948
Tarpon Springs
Detector(s) used
JW 8X-ML X2-VP 585
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
I love the last part... ignorant... heh.
 

Newfiehunter

Hero Member
Oct 20, 2007
742
342
Newfoundland
Detector(s) used
Currently own: Fisher CZ5, Eurotek Pro, Tesoro Vaquero, Tesoro Cortes, Vibraprobe 560, Vibradetector 720, Garrett ProPointer. Makro Pinpoiinter Used: Whites Liberty2, Garrett Freedom3, Garrett GTA 1
Primary Interest:
Metal Detecting
I wonder how the young lad, Levi Todd, spent the money!! $1,300 was a lot of money in those days....What is the equivalent in today's US dollars?
 

Tom_in_CA

Gold Member
Mar 23, 2007
13,837
10,360
Salinas, CA
🥇 Banner finds
2
Detector(s) used
Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
Cool story. Thanx for posting.

Somehow I don't think that legally holds true today. There's been cases of workmen finding hidden stuff on someone's property in recent legal years. And in no way, shape , or form, was it "finder's keepers". It belongs to the homeowner, even though he was ignorant of it.

From a realistic sense of veiw, it rings true though doesn't it? I mean, if a farmer has no idea a gold coin is in his row crops or cow pasture, then "how is he any worse off" if someone finds it with a metal detector, eh ? How is he harmed? What has he "lost" ? But technically, the items belong to the person on whose land it was/is.
 

cruiserkev

Full Member
Jan 18, 2015
208
236
Primary Interest:
Other
Great article. Would not happen like that these days, the parties would all be suing each other and some lucky lawyer would get all the profit. :sadsmiley:
 

OP
OP
jeff of pa

jeff of pa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Dec 19, 2003
85,465
59,223
🥇 Banner finds
1
🏆 Honorable Mentions:
1
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
I wonder how the young lad, Levi Todd, spent the money!! $1,300 was a lot of money in those days....What is the equivalent in today's US dollars?


was a college education or Very large Farm

if he didn't loose it to the Stock Market Crash of 1929,

$1,300
of 1920 dollars would be worth: $15,476.19 in 2014

Inflation Calculator 2015
 

Last edited:

Msbeepbeep

Gold Member
Jun 24, 2012
15,787
24,131
MA
Detector(s) used
M-6, pro pointer, pistol probe
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Yep the lawyers would end up with it now days by the time it was dragged thru the court system.

Ah, the wisdom of old! Now days you have to defend yourself and wealth if you hit the lottery!
 

Sod Buster

Sr. Member
Jun 14, 2014
482
487
NE Ohio
Detector(s) used
Garrett Ace 250, White's Bullseye TRX
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
was a college education or Very large Farm

if he didn't loose it to the Stock Market Crash of 1929,

$1,300
of 1920 dollars would be worth: $15,476.19 in 2014

Inflation Calculator 2015

If it was gold it would be worth $76,000.97 in todays market.

Gold in 1920 = $20.68/oz
Gold today = $1,209/oz
 

kayakpat

Hero Member
Mar 31, 2013
557
280
Detector(s) used
Bounty Hunter
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
somehow digging and trespassing on private property should raise alarms in anybody that owns a house or property or a claim. I do not think it is right at all, inspite of people who think they have rights to do what they want to others property or things especially if they did not get caught. If he had permission by the owner to dig for treasures , that is a different matter, then it is implied finders keepers. 1920's also were the heydays of popular collective ownerships beliefs types of society
 

Last edited:
OP
OP
jeff of pa

jeff of pa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Dec 19, 2003
85,465
59,223
🥇 Banner finds
1
🏆 Honorable Mentions:
1
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
somehow digging and trespassing on private property should raise alarms in anybody that owns a house or property or a claim. I do not think it is right at all, inspite of people who think they have rights to do what they want to others property or things especially if they did not get caught. If he had permission by the owner to dig for treasures , that is a different matter, then it is implied finders keepers. 1920's also were the heydays of popular collective ownerships beliefs types of society

In this case I'm taking for granted that since he was excavating for a Basement,
He was Hired to do the job. Not Trespassing.

I personally always believed Finders Keepers should be the Law.

I was surprised to read any Judge would agree with my belief though. :thumbsup:
I would have guessed a 50/50 split would have been more fair in the judges eyes.

as for the woman who sold the property,
in my eyes, If you sell a property. You sell whatever is on , in or under it
with the exception of maybe mineral rights.


if you afraid there is a $10,000.00 cache on your property.
add $10,000 to the asking price in the first place
 

Last edited:

finderskeepers

Hero Member
Jul 26, 2012
546
261
MA
Detector(s) used
Boxes on sticks, that go beep
Primary Interest:
Metal Detecting

coinbug

Full Member
Jul 22, 2013
109
59
Detector(s) used
Fisher Goldbug
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
In common law (goes back to old English cases) a finder has title to property against everyone but the true owner. That's the law the judge in this case was applying, and it would still be applicable in most jurisdictions today.
 

diggummup

Gold Member
Jul 15, 2004
17,815
10,120
Somewhere in the woods
Detector(s) used
Whites M6
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
In common law (goes back to old English cases) a finder has title to property against everyone but the true owner. That's the law the judge in this case was applying, and it would still be applicable in most jurisdictions today.
emphasis on "true".
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Top