BG, if you are in ENgland it was not necessary to pay.

As far as the original story is concerned, it is unlikely the judge was right. In most US states, if a company is dissolved the remaining property and rights vest in the shareholders per stirpes, and under the nemo dat rule the property in the items never passed. So they were not bona vacantia and the finder had no rights. The property of course vested in the then insurance company when it paid out. The thief could claim no prescriptive rights, for his possession was not "nec clam, nec vi, nec precario".

I find many US lawyers have trouble with the differences between legal and equitable ownership.