Morals of the Church
Library › Wouters, Manual of Moral Theology › Volume I › Book II. On the Exercise of the Christian Life, or on the Cultivation of the Virtues › Treatise II. On the Cultivation of the Moral Virtues › Dissertation I. On the Precepts of the Decalogue › Part VII. On the Seventh and Tenth Precepts of the Decalogue › Section I. On Commutative Justice Itself › Chapter I. On Commutative Justice Generally › Article II. On the Objects of Commutative Justice, or on Strict Rights › § III. On the Modes of Acquiring Strict Rights › Point I. On Occupation

Section — Wouters, Manual of Moral Theology

III. On the Occupation of Lost Things

797.

Lost or misplaced things are things which someone has involuntarily lost or misplaced; unlike treasure, they are presumed to have an owner, though commonly an unknown one. They are distinguished from vacant things, which have been left by a deceased owner without an heir and without a testament; likewise from abandoned things, that is, from things whose ownership someone has voluntarily cast away.

Vacant things, considered according to natural law, belong to the first occupier; considered according to civil law, they commonly fall to the fisc. Abandoned things, as is clear, belong to the first occupier. But concerning lost things, receive these points:

OccupationLost property

798.

I. The finder of a lost thing is bound from charity to apprehend it if there is hope of finding the owner, and that business of finding the owner can easily be undertaken.

II. The finder who has carried the thing away with him is bound to take care of the thing, and to apply diligence proportionate to the gravity of the thing so that the owner may be found. He is bound to these things from justice if otherwise the owner would be thrown into a worse condition because of the apprehension of the thing; if this does not occur, he is bound, according to some, from charity; according to others, from justice, either, as some say, by reason of the tacit contract which is called negotiorum gestio, or by reason of the possession itself, which belongs to the owner, and therefore seems to carry with it an obligation of justice at least to seek the owner, for this end, that he may be put into possession. Once the owner has been found, he is bound to restore the thing, insofar as it exists in itself or in its equivalent, after deducting, if he wishes, the expenses made for preserving the thing and finding the owner. Today due diligence for finding the owner is judged to have been applied if notice is made in public newspapers, and this the more frequently, the more serious the lost thing is. For the rest:

  1. Considered according to natural law alone, these points hold:

a) If, after diligence has been applied, every hope of finding the owner has vanished, the finder can dispose of the thing at will. I said:

a) He can dispose of the thing; since the thing is destined for use, and therefore, if it is judged that it can no longer serve the owner, let it serve another.

b) He can dispose of the thing at will. There are some who judge that the thing must be expended for the poor or for a pious use, because the will of the owner is presumed to be that, if the thing can no longer profit the body, it should profit the soul (cf. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 62, a. 5, ad 3). But that is quite probably denied, both because in the posited hypothesis the thing at least probably becomes a thing belonging to no one, and therefore can be occupied by the finder; and if it has become a thing belonging to no one, there is no reason why the presumed will of the owner should be cared for; and because - even if the thing is not said to belong to no one - such a will of the owner is presumed without foundation. I said that in the posited hypothesis the thing probably becomes a thing belonging to no one; for since ownership is for the sake of use, it seems to cease if every hope has vanished that the owner will be able to use his thing (St. Alphonsus, III, 603).

What if the owner afterwards appears?

Response 1. If the thing now exists neither in itself nor in its equivalent, there is no obligation, because the damage was inflicted inculpably. The same must be said if the thing has been legitimately prescribed (St. Alphonsus, III, 590).

Response 2. If the thing exists in itself or in its equivalent, there seems to be an obligation of restitution, because in doubt the condition of him who certainly was owner seems to be the better.

  1. Considered according to civil law - which in the case supplies the norm to be observed from justice - draw from the law what things have force.

Corollary. One who culpably neglected due inquiry, but now can no longer find the owner, has indeed sinned, but can rather probably retain the thing, because it is judged to belong to no one, or at least can be treated as a thing belonging to no one. If, however, the owner is afterwards found, he is bound to restore the thing insofar as it exists in itself or in its equivalent; furthermore he is bound to repair all damages following from his manner of acting and sufficiently foreseen, at least if the owner was thrown into a worse condition because of the apprehension of the thing.

OccupationLost property