Plaintiff: Gregory Corliss Defendant: Jann Wenner Appellant: Gregory Corliss App
ID: 373271 • Letter: P
Question
Plaintiff: Gregory Corliss
Defendant: Jann Wenner
Appellant: Gregory Corliss
Appellee: Jann Wenner and Larry Anderson
History and facts of the case:
Jann Wenner hired Larry Anderson to construct a driveway at Mr. Wenner’s property, Anderson employed Gregory Corliss to complete the job. While digging up the soil Anderson and Corliss discovered a gold wrapped in paper. Both the employers agreed to split the coin but some argument happened and Anderson fired Corliss and transferred the position to the owner of the property Jann Wenner with a commitment to share the wealth. Corliss sued Anderson to gain possession of the coins, when the case was brought to the court, the court dismissed the case brought forward stating that the gold was found on Wenner’s property thus the gold belongs to Wneer cancelling and treasure trove claims.
Plaintiff reasoning:
Corliss claimed that he was the one who saw the gold and asked Anderson to check it out, thus as he saw it first and introduced the treasure, it was his right to have a share of the treasure and after the altercation with Anderson, he claimed the gold in its entirety and ruling out any rights held by Anderson or Wenner.
Defendant’s theory:
Jann had the right of ownership because the gold was found on a land which was owned by her and second she was the one who hired the crew to construct the driveway which was the primary reason to dig up the soil and revealing the gold.
The legal issue:
All the stakeholders had the right to seek justice and to abide by the ruling by the court.
Holding of the court:
Yes, the court’s decision is correct and within reason.
Reasoning:
The court’s decision is right because the court took following factors in consideration:
1. The court decided not to adopt treasure trove law because it will lead in the rise of unlawful diggings and excavation of property by treasure seekers, the ruling will deter other treasure seekers to follow the same path and disturb property owners by unlawful entry etc.
2. The property was based on Idaho and Idaho does not recognize treasure trove.
3. The owner is entitled to everything found on his/her property.
Explanation / Answer
Brief Corliss v. Wenner and Anderson
Brief Corliss v. Wenner and Anderson on p. 646-647. Use pages 22-23 for reference. In your brief, you should include the following information:
the Parties (Who is the plaintiff? The defendant? The appellant? The appellee?)
the History of the case (Who won at trial court? Who won at the lower appellate level? Who won in this decision?)
the Facts (What happened that caused the plaintiff to sue?)
the Plaintiff's Theory (Why he thinks he is right)
the Defendant's Theory (Why she thinks she is right)
the Legal Issue (a yes or no question)
the Holding of the Court (Yes or no--answers the legal issue).
The Reasoning of the Court (i.e.: what facts and laws did the court rely on to decide the case; why the case was decided in the winner's favor; why did the other side lose)
What do you think? Was this case decided correctly? Why or why not?