LFC Leasing and Financial Corp. v. Ashuelot Nat. Bank, 80-035
| Decision Date | 17 September 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-035,80-035 |
| Citation | 120 N.H. 638,419 A.2d 1120 |
| Parties | LFC LEASING AND FINANCIAL CORPORATION v. ASHUELOT NATIONAL BANK. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Bergevin, Cloutier & D'Amours and Richard L. Rodman, Manchester, by brief, for plaintiff.
Goodnow, Arwe, Ayer, Prigge & Gardner, Keene, by brief, for defendant.
The principal issue in this case is whether the trial court properly granted the defendant's motion for nonsuit in an action to recover damages for the defendant's alleged conversion of three copying machines. The standard of review is whether the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom, construed most favorably to the plaintiff, would permit the trier of fact to find in its favor. Muzzy v. Rockingham County Trust Co., 113 N.H. 520, 309 A.2d 893 (1973).
The plaintiff, LFC Leasing and Financial Corporation (hereinafter LFC), is a corporation with headquarters in Boston, Massachusetts, engaged in the leasing of business equipment. Chase Office Products, Inc. (hereinafter Chase) with headquarters in Keene had customers who required copying machines, but did not wish to purchase them. By agreement with LFC, Chase referred its customers to plaintiff who purchased from Chase the desired machines and then leased them to Chase's customers. The agreement between LFC and Chase included an understanding that Chase would assist the plaintiff in transporting the machines and in remarketing them when the leases terminated.
The leases on these three copying machines, owned and leased by LFC, were terminated in May or June 1976. They were returned to Chase awaiting transfer to Rhode Island for remarketing by plaintiff through a dealer there. On July 9, 1976, LFC sent a letter, with proof of ownership, to the defendant bank demanding the immediate release of the three machines. It was received on July 12 by the bank. On July 14, 1976, LFC sent a trucker to Chase to pick up these machines. The trucker had proof of LFC's title thereto and a letter authorizing him to pick them up.
The machines were not turned over to the trucker. He was told to see the president of the defendant, Ashuelot National Bank (hereinafter bank), and the bank's attorney. The attorney informed him that the defendant had a security interest in Chase's inventory and that the bank was presently in the process of taking inventory due to an anticipated bankruptcy petition. He also stated that he would not authorize the release of the machines until all questions regarding the bank's security interests were clarified. The attorney would not state where the machines were stored or the date they would be released.
"Conversion is an intentional exercise of dominion or control over a chattel which so seriously interferes with the right of another to control it that the actor may justly be required to pay the other the full value of the chattel." Muzzy v. Rockingham County Trust Co., 113 N.H. 520, 523, 309 A.2d 893, 894 (1973); Pleasant Valley Campground, Inc. v. Melvin H. Rood, 120 N.H. ---, 411 A.2d 1104; Restatement (Second) Torts § 222A(1) (1965). The interference must be of such seriousness as to justify the imposition of a forced judicial sale on the defendant. W. Prosser, Law of Torts § 15 at 80, 81 (4th ed. 1971). Among the factors to be considered in determining the seriousness of the interference and the justice of requiring the defendant to pay the full value are: the defendant's good faith and the extent and duration of defendant's exercise of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Curtis Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Plasti-Clip Corp.
...it that the actor may justly be required to pay the other the full value of the chattel.'" LFC Leasing & Fin. Corp. v. Ashuelot Nat'l Bank, 120 N.H. 638, 640, 419 A.2d 1120, 1121 (1980) (quoting Muzzy v. Rockingham County Trust Co., 113 N.H. 520, 523, 309 A.2d 893, 894 (1973)); see also RES......
-
Curtis Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Plasti-Clip Corp.
...a declaratory judgment as to the validity of the '863 patent amounted to a "qualified refusal". LFC Leasing & Finan. Corp. v. Ashuelot Nat'l Bank, 120 N.H. 638, 641, 419 A.2d 1120, 1121 (1980). But the doctrine of "qualified refusal" is grounded on a finding that the reasonable qualificatio......
-
Anderson v. Century Products Co.
...the chattel." Curtis Mfg. Co. v. Plasti-Clip Corp., 888 F.Supp. 1212, 1233 (D.N.H.1994) (quoting LFC Leasing & Fin. Corp. v. Ashuelot Nat'l Bank, 120 N.H. 638, 640, 419 A.2d 1120, 1121 (1980)). With respect to conversion of intangible rights, the RESTATEMENT notes: "the law is evidently und......
-
Montgomery v. Devoid
...1196, 1198 (La.Ct. App.1980); Keys v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 303 Md. 397, 494 A.2d 200, 209 (1985); LFC Leasing & Fin. Corp. v. Ashuelot Nat'l Bank, 120 N.H. 638, 419 A.2d 1120, 1121 (1980); Hinkle v. Cornwell Quality Tool Co., 40 Ohio App.3d 162, 532 N.E.2d 772, 776 (1987); Beall Transp. E......