Claflin v. Gurney
| Decision Date | 28 November 1890 |
| Citation | 17 R.I. 185,20 A. 932 |
| Parties | CLAFLIN et ux v. GURNEY et al. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Exceptions from court of common pleas, Providence county.
Charles H. Page and Franklin P. Owen, for plaintiffs. Joseph O. Field, Jr., for defendants.
This is trover for the conversion of an organ, alleged to be the property of Mrs. Claflin, the female plaintiff. It appeared in testimony, at the trial, that Mrs. Claflin had been the owner of the organ several years before her marriage; that the plaintiffs had occupied a tenement belonging to the defendant; that they quitted it in the spring of 1889, at which time $16.56 were due for rent; that Mr. Claflin, who was then removing the furniture, Mrs. Claflin having previously gone away, left the organ as security for the payment thereof; that Mrs. Claflin, when she learned that it had been left, sent her mother, Mrs. Lawton, to demand it, and that the defendants refused, when Mrs. Lawton came to them, to give it up until the rent was paid, claiming to hold it as security therefor, though informed that it belonged to Mrs. Claflin. The testimony did not very distinctly show a definite or formal demand for the organ, and the defendants denied that any demand was made. The court in charging the jury instructed them that when a person comes into the possession of personal property rightfully, from one who is not its owner, he cannot be sued for it in trover without previous demand, but added, by 'way of qualification, "if one when applied to by the owner for the property, although he does not make a demand, if the one who is in possession declines absolutely to give it up, previous to any demand made, or gives the party to understand distinctly that he will hold it, willing or unwilling, no demand is necessary. For instance, if I hold a piece of property belonging to another, and the owner comes to me for the purpose of making a demand, or for the purpose of conferring with me about it, and I voluntarily state to him that I shall hold that property until a certain condition is performed, I think that in that case—and I so instruct you—no demand will be necessary; because it will he an idle ceremony to make a demand after one had refused in advance to give it up after a demand had been made. "The defendants excepted to the instruction. The question is whether it was erroneous. We find no error. The reason why a demand is necessary where a person who has come into possession of a chattel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goldstein v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co.
... ... is evidence of conversion. Adams v. Clark, 9 Cush ... 215, 57 Am. Dec. 42; Claflin v. Gurney, 17 R. I ... 185, 20 A. 932; Cooley, Torts, pp. 859, 860, 867, 873, note ... 6; Wamsley v. Atlas S. S. Co. 168 N.Y. 533, 85 Am ... St ... ...
-
Fuscellaro v. Industrial Nat. Corp.
...can be brought against the possessor of a chattel who has rightfully obtained possession from one not its owner. Claflin v. Gurney, 17 R.I. 185, 187, 20 A. 932, 933 (1890). Since the instant case does not involve such an original rightful possession, the demand exception to the general rule......
-
Masurel Mills, Inc. v. Dubois
...A demand is unnecessary, however, if the possessor has previously declared his intention not to relinquish the property. Claflin v. Gurney, 17 R.I. 185, 20 A. 932. We hold therefore that on the state of the record in the instant cause the decision of the full commission was not The responde......
-
Nestle-Lemur Co. v. Corrigan, 7918.
...for his own or another's use." The following definition of the "conversion" of a chattel after a demand appears in Claflin v. Gurney, 17 R.I. 185, at page 187, 20 A. 932, 933: "The conversion consists in the retention of a under a claim of right, or in the assumption of dominion over it in ......