CHARRIER V. BELL 496 So.2d 601 (1986) CASE BRIEF

CHARRIER V. BELL

496 So.2d 601 (1986)

NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over title to artifacts.

FACTS: Charrier (P) was an amateur archeologist and through research of colonial maps, records, and texts, P concluded that a plantation near Angola was the possible site of an ancient village of Tunica Indians. P alleges that he obtained permission from a Frank Hoshman to excavate the land. After excavating about 30-40 burial plots, P contends that Hoshman then told him he was only the caretaker of the property and not the owner. P then continued to excavate the site and eventually 2.5 tons of artifacts were discovered and removed from 150 graves. P sought a buyer for the collection and eventually located two distinguished professors in the field to lease the artifacts to the Peabody Museum. P initially informed the Drs. that he had found the artifacts in a cave in Mississippi in order to conceal their source. Eventually P disclosed the truth to Dr. Brain of Harvard University. Brain then obtained permission from the landowners to do further site testing and confirmed that P was now telling the truth. P was unable to sell the collection because he could not prove ownership. P then sued the six nonresident landowners of the plantation for declaratory relief and unjust enrichment. In 1978, the State of Louisiana intervened in the proceeding and agreed to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the prior owners. The state also purchased the plantation and the artifacts from the six owners. Eventually the Tunica and Biloxi Indians were recognized as an American Indian Tribe in 1981. The trial judge held that the artifacts belonged to the Indian Tribe. The judge also found that P had no claim to the artifacts on the basis of abandonment because that concept did not extend to burial grounds. The trial court also denied P unjust enrichment finding that any impoverishment claimed by P was a result of his attempts for his own gain and that his presence and actions on the property of another placed him in a precarious position if not in legal bad faith. P appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner