FACTS:
Bart has mislaid his personal property and is offering a reward for its return. Alan hasfound Bart’s property and is demanding the reward as a pre-condition to its return.

ISSUE:
The issue in this case is whether Alan can demand the reward as a pre-condition to the return of Bart’s property, under Oregon law.

RULES:
In MacFarlane v. Bloch, 9 Ore. 1 (Or. 1911), the plaintiff, MacFarlane, found a pocketbook which contained promissory notes worth $1,000 belonging to the defendant, Bloch. Plaintiff withheld the notes demanding the reward be paid before their return. The defendant refused to pay the reward and had the defendant arrested for larceny. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for the reward and prevailed. The state’s highest court found that if the plaintiff had made a good faith attempt to locate the true owner for the purpose of returning the lost property, they would be entitled to the reward.
In Watts v. Ward, 1 Ore. 86, 88 (Or. 1854), the plaintiff found horses owned by the defendant, Ward. While being returned to the owners, the finder used the horses for work purposes where they subsequently perished. The plaintiff contended that he was due monetary compensation for the expenses incurred while returning the lost horses to the defendant. The fact that the horses did not survive, the true owner asserted the belief that the finder was not entitled to payment. The instant court found that since a reward was not offered by the defendant, the plaintiff was not entitled to compensation. The case states, at common law, “a finder of lost property is not entitled to a reward for finding it if there be no promise of such reward by an owner.” Watts p. 87..
ANALYSIS:
As per our case, the finder, Alan, similar to the finder in MacFarlane, made an effort to return the property to Bart, the true owner, and has the