One who lawfully comes to the possession of another's personal prop- erty, which was then lost. The finder of lost property at common law had a valid claim to the same against all the world except the true owner; 1 Stra. 504; 62 Me. 275; 1 E. D. Sm. 393; 11 R. L 588; 28 Gratt. 601; 16 Ore. 269; and money or property found on the premises of an- other has been held, in the case of a servant in a hotel, as against the proprietor, to be long to the finder; 90 Pa. 377; so a stranger who finds money in a shop may retain it as against the shop-owner: 21 L. J. Q. B. 75; unless it has been simply laid aside and left by mistake; 10 Allen (Mass.) 548; 1 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 22; or a conductor who finds money on the cars may retain it as against the company; 56 N. Y. 175; or an employe in a mill, who finds bank-notes among old papers bought to be manufactured over; 62 Ind. 281. Drift-logs found on the banks of a river may be rightfully retained by the finder as against the riparian owner; 86 Tenn. 14; but an aerolite which buries itself in the ground belongs rather to the owner of the soil on which it falls than to one who observes it and digs it out; 86 Ia. 71. In a very recent English case, where a workman employed by a corporation to clear out a pool on its land found two rings in the mud at the bottom of the pool, the corporation was held entitled to recover the rings in an action of detinue; [1896] 2 Q. B. 44. In that case Lord Russell of Killowen, C. J., put the decision on the ground that the possession of land carried with it everything attached to it, or under it, and he expressly distinguished the last English case above cited, which, he said, stood by itself on the special ground that the notes being dropped in the public part of the shop were never in the custody of the shopkeeper; according- ly he says: "It is somewhat strange that there is no more direct authority on the question; but the general principle seems to me to be that where a person has posses- sion of house or land, with a manifest in- tention to exercise control over it and the things which may be upon or in it, then, if something is found on that land, whether by an employe of the owner or by a stran- ger, the presumption is that the possession of that thing is in the owner of the locus in quo." A commentator upon these cases says: "This language applies to land with respect to which the public has no easement, which differentiates the case from findings in shops and other public places. The real distinction, however, is this, that those things belong to the owner of the premises in which they are found, which, either from their nature, or from the circumstances attending the loss, become practically part and parcel of the freehold, such as the rings, covered by the water and mud, which undoubtedly belonged to the owner of the land, and the aerolite which buried itself in the ground to the depth of three feet; or, to use the language of some of the cases, those things belong to the owner which may be regarded as accretions to his land, such as the aerolite, the rings, or drift-logs; though the latter may be pursued and taken by a former finder, from whom they have es- caped." 36 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 588. Where a man buys a chattel which un- known to himself and the vendor contains valuable property, he will; as to that, be considered merely as a finder. When a person purchased at a public auction, a bureau, and appropriated to his own use a purse containing money, found in a secret drawer, the existence of which at the time of the sale was not known to any one, it was held that there was a delivery of the bu- reau but not of the purse and money, and it was a simple case of finding and subject to the law in such cases; 7 M. &. W. 623. See Br. Leg. Max., 8th Am. ed. 807. The finder is entitled to certain rights, and liable to duties which he is obliged to perform. This is a species of deposit, which, as it does not arise ex contractu, may be called a quasi deposit; and it is governed by the same general rules as common de- posits. The finder is required to take the same reasonable care of the property found as any voluntary depositary ex contractu; Doctor & Stud. Dial. 2, c. 38; 2 Bulstr. 306, 312; 1 Rolle 125; 50 Vt. 688; 107 Mass. 251. The finder is not bound to take the goods he finds; yet, when he does undertake the custody, he is required to exercise reason- able diligence in preserving the property; and he will be responsible for gross negli- gence. Some of the old authorities laid down that "if a man find butter, and by his negligent keeping it putrefy, or if a man find garments, and by his negligent keeping they be moth-eaten, no action lies." So it is if a man find goods and then lose them again. Bacon, Abr. Bailment, D; and in support of this position, Leon. 123, 223; Ow. 141; 2 Bulstr. 21, are cited. But these cases, if carefully examined, will not, per... haps, be found to decide the point as broadly as it is stated in Bacon A finder w