Dietzman v. Ralston Purina Co.
| Decision Date | 22 March 1967 |
| Parties | Ernest W. DIETZMAN and Shirley Dietzman, Appellants, v. RALSTON PURINA COMPANY, a corporation, Respondent. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
R. W. Pickell, Salem, argued the cause and filed briefs for appellants.
George L. Hibbard, Oregon City, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Hibbard, Jacobs, Caldwell & Kincart and Paul D. Schultz, Oregon City.
Before PERRY, C.J., and McALLISTER, O'CONNELL, DENECKE and REDDING, JJ.
This is an action to recover damages for the conversion of plaintiffs' chickens. Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of involuntary nonsuit.
Plaintiffs executed and delivered to defendant a chattel mortgage covering a flock of chickens owned by them. Plaintiffs contend that the chattel mortgage was invalid; that defendant refused to release the mortgage; that as a result plaintiffs were unable to obtain feed on credit and were forced to sell their chickens.
It is plaintiffs' theory that defendant's conduct which resulted in forcing plaintiffs to sell their chickens constituted a conversion.
The mere assertion of an unfounded lien does not constitute a conversion. Richstein v. Roesch, 71 S.D. 451, 25 N.W.2d 558, 169 A.L.R. 98 (1946) is closely in point. See also, Restatement (Second), Torts § 224 (1965).
The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Desbien v. Penokee Farmers Union Co-op. Ass'n
...Cloyes & Morse, 8 Vt. 30; Jenkins v. Holly, 204 Ala. 519, 86 So. 390; Knowles v. Knowles, 25 R.I. 464, 56 A. 775; Dietzman v. Ralston Purina Co., 246 Or. 367, 425 P.2d 163. He also cites Richstein v. Roesch, 71 S.D. 451, 25 N.W.2d 558, 169 A.L.R. 98, which held that the filing and foreclosu......
-
Radish Seed Growers' Ass'n v. Nw. Bank
...control.'" Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss (doc. 6) at 17; Objections (doc. 52) at 12-13, Defendant relies on Dietzman v. Ralston Purina Co., 246 Or. 367 (1967), In Dietzman, plaintiffs appealed from a judgment of voluntary nonsuit, arguing that defendant converted plaintiffs' flock......
-
Prewitt v. Branham
...the security interest never exercises ownership or control other than the filing of the security interest. Dietzman v. Ralston Purina Co., 246 Or. 367, 425 P.2d 163 (1967); Richstein v. Roesch, 71 S.D. 451, 25 N.W.2d 558 (1946); Annot., 169 A.L.R. 100 (1947). Branham objected to the damage ......