Intresting 1920 Attitude: "Finders Keepers"

jeff of pa

Super Moderator
⛭ Moderator
🥇 Charter Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2003
Messages
89,975
Reaction score
65,567
Golden Thread
2
🥇 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.webp
2.webp
3.webp

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

Last edited:
I love the last part... ignorant... heh.
 

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?
 

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.
 

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:
 

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:
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!
 

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
 

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:
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:
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.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom