Steel Const. Co. v. Rossville Alcohol & Chemical Corporation

• Decision Date: 16 February 1938
• Docket Number: 15654.
• Citation: 12 N.E.2d 987,105 Ind.App. 520
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court
• Parties: STEEL CONST. CO. v. ROSSVILLE ALCOHOL & CHEMICAL CORPORATION.

12 N.E.2d 987

105 Ind.App. 520

STEEL CONST. CO. v. ROSSVILLE ALCOHOL & CHEMICAL CORPORATION.

No. 15654.

Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.

February 16, 1938

Donald W. Strickland, of Birmingham, Ala., and Charles A. Lowe, of Lawrenceburg, for appellant.

E G. Bielby, of Lawrenceburg, Slaymaker, Merrill & Locke of Indianapolis, and Harmon, Colston, Goldsmith &amp Hoadley, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellee.

DUDINE Presiding Judge.

This was an action for conversion of tools and machinery instituted by appellant against appellee.

The complaint was an ordinary form of complaint for conversion. Appellee filed an answer in general denial. The cause was submitted to the court for trial without a jury. The court found for appellee (defendant below), and rendered judgment accordingly.

There is but one error assigned upon appeal, and that is claimed error in overruling appellant's motion for new trial. The causes for new trial presented are that the decision is not sustained by sufficient evidence and that the decision is contrary to law.

The evidence shows that appellant was engaged in erecting large steel tanks on appellee's premises pursuant to a contract with appellee; that appellant had brought some tools and machinery to said premises for use in said construction work. While said work was in progress a fire occurred which destroyed the partially completed tanks, the property adjacent thereto, and the buildings which housed said tanks. Said tools and machinery were on, in, and about said premises, buildings, and tanks when said fire occurred, and they "went through the fire."

After the fire appellee contracted with the Bishop Wrecking Company, a corporation, to raze the parts of said buildings and tanks which remained standing, and to remove all the débris. The contract provided that all the salvage from the débris (except certain steel plates and I beams) was to be the property of said wrecking company. The débris, including what was left of said tools and machinery which went through the fire, was removed by the wrecking company.

Appellant contends that the evidence shows that appellee stopped its (appellant's) agents from, and refused them permission to enter upon the premises to salvage the tools and machinery and appellant contends further that such acts of dominion over the property amounted to conversion.

There is evidence in the record which shows that appellee, in effect, instructed appellant's agents to refrain from salvaging said tools and machinery only for a reasonable time, until insurance appraisers could view the premises that appellee did not...