Section I. Possession of Another's Property in Good Faith

When one discovers that he is in possession without any just title of what belongs to someone else, justice requires that he should restore it to the rightful owner, or at least give the owner warning so that he may remove it at his own expense. For justice requires that all should have their own, res clamat domino, and if one knowingly detains what belongs to another against the owner’s reasonable wish he commits the sin of theft.

If the possessor of another’s property consumed it while he was in good faith, and now when he finds out the truth, he neither has the property itself nor its equivalent, he is bound to nothing, res perit domino. The property no longer exists, and cannot be restored to its true owner; there was no fault committed by consuming what was supposed to belong to the consumer, so there is no obligation to make compensation to the owner for his loss. This is all the more true if the property was destroyed, or perished by accident, or in the ordinary course of nature.

If any natural or civil fruits, derived from the property of another, still remain after the possessor has found out that the property belonged to someone else, he must restore them to the owner of the property to whom they belong, for res fructificat domino, Fruits of his own industry acquired on occasion of his possession of the property of another, he may keep, for the labourer has a right to the fruit of his toil.

Mixed fruits, which are partly due to industry, partly to the natural or artificial fertility of the property, belong partly to the labourer, partly to the owner of the property, according to what the law may prescribe, or according to the estimate of a prudent man.

The foregoing rules tell us what has to be done when one discovers that he has possession of the property of another, or when such property has perished while in his possession, But suppose that while he was in good faith the possessor of another’s property, he sold it to someone else, and afterwards he finds out that it was not his to sell, what are his obligations in that case ¹ No general answer can be given to this question; it will be necessary to distinguish according to several possible hypotheses.

The sale may have taken place in market overt, and then though the seller could not give a valid title to the property, yet the law does so. The Sale of Goods Act, 1893, sec. 22, makes the following provision: “ Where goods are sold in market overt, according to the usage of the market, the buyer acquires a good title to the goods, provided he buys them in good faith and without notice of any defect or want of title on the part of the seller.”

According to Indermaur, ‘‘ By sale in market overt is meant selling goods in open market as opposed to selling them privately. In the country the market-place or piece of ground set apart by custom for the sale of goods is in general the only open market there; but in London, and in other towns where so warranted by custom, a sale in an open shop of proper goods is equivalent to, and in fact amounts to, sale in market overt,””²

In spite, however, of sale in market overt, “‘ Where goods have been stolen and the offender is prosecuted to conviction, the property in the goods so stolen revests in the person who was the owner of the goods, or his personal representative, “notwithstanding any intermediate dealing with them, whether by sale in market overt or otherwise.’”” In this case on conviction of an offence which involves larceny, the court, if the accused has sold the property to an L: innocent purchaser, on restitution of the property to the owner, may order the price paid by the purchaser to be repaid to him out of any money found on the convict when arrested. This provision is in addition to that allowing compensation to a person injured by a felony.”³

If the sale did not take place in market overt, and the stolen property has not been restored to the true owner, the seller is bound to nothing in justice, according to a very probable opinion. For the property is no longer in his possession or under his control, so he cannot restore it to the owner; if he received money for it, he received it in good faith for value, and when he has mixed it with his other moneys it would seem that he makes it his own.⁴ It would seem that this is in accordance with English law: ‘‘ A mesne possessor acquiring the goods innocently from the thief, and reselling before conviction, is under no obligation in trover to the original owner.”⁵

It was said above that the seller is bound to nothing in justice, but if without relatively serious inconvenience to himself he can, by giving the requisite information, procure the restoration of the property to its rightful owner, he will be bound to do this out of charity.

If the property was not sold in market overt, and if it has been restored to the rightful owner, the purchaser can demand back the purchase money from the seller, rescinding the contract for failure of warranty which is implied in every such sale: ‘“‘ In a contract of sale, unless the circumstances of the contract are such as to show a different intention, there is: (1) An implied condition on the part of the seller that in the case of a sale he has a right to sell the goods, and that in the case of an agreement to sell he will have a right to sell the goods at the time when the property is to pass; (2) an implied warranty that the buyer shall have and enjoy quiet possession of the goods.’”⁶ These solutions would seem to be tenable whether the mesne possessor obtained the property in good faith by purchase or by gift, and whether he gained anything or not by selling it. For although one who possesses another’s property either in itself or in its equivalent is bound to make restitution to the owner, a mesne possessor who has sold it in good faith to another no longer possesses it even in its equivalent, for the price after being mixed with his own moneys is not its equivalent; and although he is the richer by the transaction, yet it cannot be said that he is the richer unjustly, and so he is not bound to restitution.⁷

It is a disputed point among theologians whether a purchaser in good faith from a thief of stolen goods, on finding out that the goods were stolen, may return them to the seller if he cannot otherwise get back his money. It would seem that in conscience he may do so, for in so doing he does not wrong the rightful owner; he replaces the goods where he found them, so to say, and they are in no worse a position through having been for a time in his possession. He is justified in leaving them there if he cannot otherwise save himself from loss.⁸ Such an action, however, might bring him into collision with the law of the country. In England it might amount to misprision of felony or be considered compounding a felony.

¹ Principles of the Common Law, p. 323, 6th ed.

² Sale of Goods Act, 1893, sec. 24.

³ Encyclopedia of Laws of England, s.v. Stolen Goods.

⁴ Stephen, 2, p. 60.

⁵ Encyclopedia of Laws of England, s.v. Stolen Goods.

⁶ Sale of Goods Act, 1893, sec. 12.

⁷ Bucceroni, 1, n. 1341.

⁸ St Alphonsus, 3, n. 569.