Richstein v. Roesch

• Citation: 25 N.W.2d 558,71 S.D. 451
• Decision Date: 28 December 1946
• Docket Number: 8763.
• Parties: RICHSTEIN v. ROESCH.
• Court: Supreme Court of South Dakota

25 N.W.2d 558

71 S.D. 451

RICHSTEIN v. ROESCH.

No. 8763.

Supreme Court of South Dakota

December 28, 1946

P. J. Maloney and E. B. Harkin, both of Aberdeen for defendant and appellant.

Elmer Thurow and Vernon Williams, both of Aberdeen, for plaintiff and respondent.

ROBERTS Judge.

This is an action to recover damages for the wrongful conversion of a caterpillar tractor. There was a verdict for the plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

On appeal defendant asserts (1) that the court erred in directing in its instructions a verdict on the issue of conversion; (2) that the trial court exceeded its authority in the pre-trial proceedings; and (3) that there was prejudicial error committed by the trial judge in communicating with the jurors after the case had been submitted to them and without notice to or the consent of the parties or their counsel.

That part of the instructions complained of is as follows: 'It is the opinion of this Court that the mechanics lien statement which was filed was entirely void and illegal; that the foreclosure proceedings were also void and illegal; that as a matter of law the defendant Roesch is liable to the plaintiff Richstein for the fair market value of the caterpillar tractor on January 15, 1943, and that the only issue for you to decide in this case is the value of the said tractor on that date.'

Defendant introduced in evidence a copy of a statement and notice of a lien filed in the office of the register of deeds of Marshall county reciting that defendant furnished labor and materials in the repair of a caterpillar tractor owned by David Richstein, the plaintiff herein. It appears from the notice that there was due to the defendant $17.71. This included charges for gasoline and oil and a clutch plate. There was also introduced in evidence an assignment of the purported lien by the defendant to Leo T. Butler and a report of a foreclosure sale wherein it appears that the tractor was sold at such sale to one Harold Thayer for $51. Butler testified: 'I purchased the account. My records show that the assignment of the lien was made on the 17th day of January. After this transaction I had nothing further to do with the defendant in regard to the account or the mechanic's lien or the assignment. My attention is called to the fact that the foreclosure is in the name of E Mickelson, agent for Jake Roesch Implement Company. I don't know whether I or my attorney prepared this notice of sale. I had no authority to foreclosure in their name and no authorization from the defendant, Jake Roesch, or from Mickelson.'

The statute permits liens for materials and labor furnished in the 'alteration, repair, replacement of parts, storage keeping, maintenance, and preservation of any personal property.' SDC 39.0801. The gasoline and oil were nonlienable items. There is no evidence that the clutch plate was used in the repair of the tractor. The only testimony in this regard was given by plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff testified that the clutch plate was purchased to repair a truck and defendant testified that he had no personal knowledge of the transaction. It conclusively appears that defendant had no claim to or lien on the tractor.

Counsel for plaintiff contend that it is not essential to conversion that there should be a manual taking of the property of another and that defendant applied the same to his own use; that interference with the ownership of a chattel constitutes a conversion; and that defendant converted the tractor when he filed and assigned the purported mechanic's lien.

We are satisfied that while manual possession of the property is not necessary to constitute conversion something more than the mere claim or filing of a mechanic's lien is necessary. There is no conversion where there is no denial or violation of plaintiff's dominion over or rights in the property. As stated by the court in Bolling v. Kirby, 90 Ala 215, 7 So. 914, 917, 24 Am.St.Rep. 789: 'Conversion which...