[Sloth]

And the title to an item that was stolen (if that's what happened) does not magically transfer itself to you just because a lot of time has passed.

Well, aside from land.

[1rudeboy]

Even if adverse possession applies to coins in general, it would not apply in this case because Langbord’s possession of them was not “open and notorious.”

[Scoutmaster]

Re: the comments:

• Isn't there a common-law principle whereby unchallenged possession for some period of time constitutes title?

• And the title to an item that was stolen (if that's what happened) does not magically transfer itself to you just because a lot of time has passed.

  Well, aside from land.

No, there's almost always more to acquiring title to land through adverse possession than simply having unchallenged possession. The law differs from state to state but generally requires that the possession be "actual, open, exclusive, continuous, and notorious." Some states use the additional term "hostile" or similar words.

Basically, in most cases, the true landowner has to KNOW (or there should be facts where a reasonable landowner should know) that the squatter/interloper is laying claim to the land, by fencing it in, or living on it, or otherwise doing something that's open and an obvious statement of "I own this" contrary to the true landowner's right.

In some states, the squatter even has to possess the land under "color of title," which means he or she has to have a deed or other document that purports to give title, even if it doesn't in fact, in a situation where a reasonable person would not suspect that the deed was invalid.

I wouldn't be surprised if one or two western states had a less stringent standard, but the general national standard requires the the true owner of the land KNOW or be in possession of facts where he SHOULD KNOW of the squatter's claim.

Sorry to go all lawyer on you.