Hale v. Ames

Decision Date25 October 1825
CourtKentucky Court of Appeals
PartiesHALE <I>vs.</I> AMES

Judge DAVIDGE delivered the opinion of the Court.

THIS was an action of trover and conversion, by the plaintiff in error, to recover for the conversion of a number of hogs, which the defendant had caused to be sold under a distress warrant, as the property of a certain William F. Hansford.

On the trial of the cause below, the defendant moved the court to instruct the jury as in case of a nonsuit, because he had not, at any time, such possession of the hogs as subjected him to an action of trover and conversion, and the court accordingly gave the instruction.

The correctness of this decision is the only question for our determination. It is presented by a bill of exceptions taken to the opinion of the court below, in which the evidence is set forth.

It appears that the hogs which were the subject of controversy, were the property of the plaintiff; that the defendant knew it and procured a distress warrant to be levied on them, and was active in procuring their sale, which he effected, and one Barnett became the purchaser.

We conceive the evidence, as set forth in the bill of exceptions, conduced to prove that there was a conversion of the hogs, and consequently it should have been left to the jury.

If the officer converted the hogs by the agency or procurement of the defendant, he, the defendant, was liable to the action; it was not necessary that he should have had the actual possession of them, to render himself liable.

We apprehend the law to be, that any actual wrongful exercise or assumption, by a person himself, or by another by his procurement, over the goods of the real owner, by which he is deprived of them, is a conversion for which the action of trover will lie. 2 Saund. 47; 1 Chitty on Plead. 153; 6 Mad. 112; 2 Phil. Law of Evid. 119, and the authorities there cited.

The judgment must be reversed with costs, the cause remanded to the court below for new proceedings to be had, not inconsistent with this opinion.

Depew, for plaintiff.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT