Powers v. Tilley

• Decision Date: 08 October 1894
• Citation: 32 A. 714,87 Me. 34
• Parties: POWERS v. TILLEY.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

32 A. 714

87 Me. 34

POWERS

v. TILLEY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Oct. 8, 1894.

(Official.)

Exceptions from superior court, Aroostook county.

Action by Don A. H. Powers against Leonard K. Tilley. There was a verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepts. Exceptions overruled.

F. A. Powers, D. H. Powers, and L. C. Stearns, for plaintiff.

C. P. Allen, for defendant.

STROUT, J. Trover for a quantity of railroad sleepers. The cedar logs, from which the sleepers were made, had been cut on plaintiff's land by two trespassers, and by them manufactured into sleepers, and then sold to the defendant. The question is, what is the rule of damages. The presiding judge instructed the jury, that the plaintiff was entitled "to recover the value of the sleepers at the time of conversion [by defendant], whatever the sleepers were worth in the market to sell"; that, "at the instant Mr. Tilley [defendant] made that conversion, that instant he interfered with Mr. Powers' rights, and Mr. Powers [the plaintiff] is entitled to compensation measured by the value of the sleepers at that time. If Mr. York [the trespasser] had added to the value of those sleepers by his labor, that does not matter." To this instruction defendant excepted. He now claims that plaintiff should recover only the value of the logs before manufacture into sleepers.

The logs being the property of the plaintiff when cut, the trespasser could not acquire any property therein by expending labor upon them. They still remained his property, and he could take them as such wherever he could find them, and the trespasser could have no claim against him for this increased value by reason of his labor thereon. When the defendant received the sleepers from the trespassers, and converted them to his own use, he took possession of plaintiff's property wrongfully. His conversion of the property could not antedate his purchase. That conversion was of the sleepers as they then were, not of the logs as when cut.

The rule of damages in trover is universal, that it is the value of the property at the time of the conversion. If the plaintiff had replevied the sleepers, it is difficult to perceive any defense that could have been made. Could the defendant have said, that he had a special property in the sleepers to the extent of the value added to the logs by the original trespassers, and require plaintiff to pay that value before maintaining his suit? Clearly riot. A rule that would relieve trespassers from all loss would tend to encourage wrongdoing.

It...