Spoiler Warning: it's not possible to ask this question without spoiling major plot points of the book/film Holes. So stop reading if that matters to you
In the film Holes*, in the early 1900s, a man named Stanley Yelnats was robbed of a chest full of treasure. The bandit later buried the treasure on the property of a man named Trout Walker in Texas. Years later, in the late 90s or early 00s, Stanley Yelnats' great-grandson (also named Stanley Yelnats) found the treasure.
In the film Holes*, in the early 1900s, a man named Stanley Yelnats was robbed of a chest full of treasure. The bandit later buried the treasure on the property of a man named Trout Walker in Texas. Years later, in the late 90s or early 00s, Stanley Yelnats' great-grandson (also named Stanley Yelnats) found the treasure.
In the scene where the treasure is found, the owner of the property (Trout Walker's grand-daughter) insists that the chest belongs to her because it was found on her property. But the chest has Stanley Yelnats'name on it, so Stanley's lawyer takes it and it goes to Stanley's family.
In the scene where the treasure is found, the owner of the property (Trout Walker's grand-daughter) insists that the chest belongs to her because it was found on her property. But the chest has Stanley Yelnats'name on it, so Stanley's lawyer takes it and it goes to Stanley's family.
I have two questions, assuming real-life Texas inheritance and property law:
- Who is the rightful owner of the chest of treasure?
- Regardless of who the ultimate rightful owner is, did Stanley's lawyer have the right to take something off of the Walker's property just because it had Stanley's name on it?
* I think this is all same in the book as well, but I haven't read it, so I'm not sure
