Ragsdale v. Williams

• Decision Date: 31 August 1848
• Citation: 8 Ired. 498,30 N.C. 498
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: TIMOTHY RAGSDALE v. ALEXANDER WILLIAMS.

8 Ired. 498

30 N.C. 498

TIMOTHY RAGSDALE

v.ALEXANDER WILLIAMS.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August Term, 1848.

Any act of ownership over personal property taken, which is inconsistent with the owner's right of dominion over it, is evidence of a conversion.

But where no act is done, where there is no refusal to deliver, and no claim of right to the property, where in truth the defendant is wholly passive; though the property was found in his possession, this, per se, does not subject the defendant to an action of trover.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Iredell County, at the Spring Term, 1848, his Honor Judge MANLY presiding.

Case in trover for a wagon. Property in the plaintiff was admitted. The plaintiff hired the wagon to one Baily, who swapped it away to a man by the name of Dowell. The latter, upon a visit to the defendant, who is his father-in-law, drove the wagon in question and left it on his premises, where it was found by the plaintiff and claimed. The defendant told him how Dowell had brought it there, and how the latter had come by it, according to his statement, and where he might be found, and expressed a hope, that Dowell and Baily might recant their bargain and the plaintiff get his wagon, provided Dowell got back the horse he traded for it. The plaintiff made an affidavit before a magistrate, stating the transaction and also that the wagon was in possession of Dowell. This affidavit was read by him to a company assembled at the Defendant's, and a demand was made of the wagon, but of no particular person. Upon its being read the defendant observed, “Dowell has no possessions here, these are my possessions.” He further stated, the plaintiff did not understand the laws of North Carolina, as well as he did; that by those laws, if a man loaned a thing and it was sold, the owner could not get it back again. It was also testified by a witness, that the defendant said on that occasion, “keep the wagon Dowell; I will see you out.” Dowell removed from that part of the County and nothing further was seen of the wagon. It was further in evidence, that, when the plaintiff returned from the defendant's he was asked if the latter set up any claim to the wagon, who replied he did not, but claimed that it was in his possession. It was insisted by the defendant's counsel, that there was no evidence of a conversion by the defendant, and, if there were, it was not for his own use and benefit, and therefore the plaintiff could not recover of him, and asked his Honor so to instruct the jury, which was refused; and his Honor charged, that it was not material for whose use the conversion was made; if the defendant deprived the plaintiff of the property; refusing to deliver it on demand, or if he co-operated with Dowell in conveying it away and withholding it from the owner, he would be liable. Mere arguments on the part of the defendant, in favor of his son's rights, would not amount to such a co-operation; there must be some concert of understanding and action, by which a joint conversion is effected and in that case a joint liability would follow. The action of trover is an action of tort, and the whole tort consists in the wrongful conversion. To entitle the plaintiff to a recovery, he must show a right of property in himself either general or special, and a wrongful conversion by the defendant. In form it is a fiction; in substance a remedy to recover...