de Vries v. Brumback
Decision Date | 19 February 1960 |
Citation | 2 Cal.Rptr. 764,349 P.2d 532,53 Cal.2d 643 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | , 349 P.2d 532 Paul DE VRIES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. James J. BRUMBACK, Appellant. S. F. 20331. |
Leo R. Friedman, San Francisco, for appellant.
Lloyd M. Tweedt, Robert H. Thede and Derby, Cook, Quinby & Tweedt, San Francisco, for respondent.
On February 18, 1955, plaintiff's assignor, a San Francisco jewelry firm, was robbed of certain money, precious stones and jewelry. Thereafter, in this action for conversion, plaintiff recovered judgment against defendant James J. Brumback for $21,947.13, the value of the property that was taken in the robbery and was not subsequently recovered. Defendant Brumback appeals on the judgment roll, contending that the findings do not support the judgment.
The pertinent findings of fact are:
(Emphasis added.)
Upon these findings, appellant contends that he was improperly held liable for property over which he at no time exercised any dominion and which was never in his possession. He argues that he was not a member of the pre-robbery conspiracy and that conspiracy terminated when, after the robbery, the 'greater part of the stolen goods' was delivered to Bigarani; that thereafter, when appellant received part of the stolen property, a new conversion was committed, and his liability cannot extend beyond the amount of goods he received; and since all such stolen goods that he received were recovered, no damages could properly be assessed against him by reason of this second conversion. But appellant misconstrues the import of the findings and the premise of his liability for damages in a civil action involving a conspiracy. The basis of the damage claim was the alleged conversion of goods taken in a robbery. Conversion has been defined as 'an act of wilful interference with a chattel, done without lawful justification, by which any person entitled thereto is deprived of use and possession.' Prosser on Torts, 2nd Ed., p. 66; see 48 Cal.Jur.2d Trover and Conversion, § 2, p. 536; George v. Bekins Van & Storage Co., 33 Cal.2d 834, 837, 205 P.2d 1037; Gruber v. Pacific States Savings & Loan Co., 13 Cal.2d 144, 148, 88 P.2d 137. It is a continuing tort as long as the person entitled to the use and possession of his property is deprived thereof. Contrary to appellant's argument, it does not necessarily end when the original wrongdoer transfers physical possession to another. Likewise, a conspiracy to convert is a continuing concert of action lasting so long as the agreement to exercise dominion over another's property continues. The time when the common design of the conspirators is fully accomplished depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, and on the nature and purpose of the conspiracy all matters for the determination of the trier of fact. (11 Cal.Jur.2d Conspiracy, § 4, pp. 222-224.)
The case was tried upon the theory of conspiracy and the trial court expressly found that the general purpose of the conspirators was to 'convert all of the stolen property in said robbery to their own use and benefit and said conspiracy and its purpose had not terminated at the time said James J. Brumback joined, ratified and participated in said conspiracy.' (Emphasis added.) True, the trial court found that Brumback was not a party to the conspiracy prior to or during the robbery, but that the conspiracy did not then terminate and Brumback within a few hours after the robbery joined the pre-existing conspiracy. Apparently, disposition of the stolen property was a primary feature of the conspiracy, and that had not been accomplished when Brumback joined it and thereafter aided in such disposition. See People v. Sorrentino, 146 Cal.App.2d 149, 161, 303 P.2d 859. As to Brumback's active participation therein, the court found that he 'took the greater part of said stolen property into his possession and custody.' Such overt act was clearly in furtherance of the general plan of the conspirators to exercise dominion over all the property as against the owner and to convert it to 'their own use and benefit.'
As above noted, this appeal is one upon the judgment roll alone, and the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings is not open. White v. Jones, 136 Cal.App.2d 567, 569, 288 P.2d 913. It therefore must be assumed that there was ample evidence to support the trial court's finding of a continuing conspiracy to convert and dispose of the stolen property, and that Brumback joined and actively participated in that existing conspiracy before its termination and with full knowledge of its scope and design. See People v. Brumback, 152 Cal.App.2d 386, 391, 314 P.2d 98.
It is the settled rule that 'to render a person civilly liable for injuries resulting from a conspiracy of which he was a member, it is not necessary that he should have joined the conspiracy at the time of its inception; every one who enters into such a common design is in law a party to every act previously or subsequently done by any of the others in pursuance of it.' 15 C.J.S. Conspiracy § 19, p. 1030; Peterson v. Cruickshank, 144 Cal.App.2d 148, 165, 300 P.2d 915; Franck v. Moran, 36 Cal.App. 32, 39, 171 P. 841. Having been found to have joined and actively participated in the continuing conspiracy to convert, appellant became liable for the previous acts of his co-conspirators under the rules relating to civil liability, and the fact that some of the missing goods may never have come into his possession would not absolve him from liability. Smith v. Blodget, 187 Cal. 235, 242, 201 P. 584; Revert v. Hesse, 184 Cal. 295, 301, 193 P. 943; Lomita Land & Water Co. v. Robinson, 154 Cal. 36, 48, 97 P. 10, 18 L.R.A.,N.S., 1106; Peterson v. Cruickshank, supra, 144 Cal.App.2d 148, 168, 300 P.2d 915; State of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
IIG Wireless, Inc. v. Yi
...but a form of vicarious liability by which one defendant can be held liable for the acts of another. ( De Vries v. Brumback (1960) 53 Cal.2d. 643, 650, 2 Cal.Rptr. 764, 349 P.2d 532 ; Kidron v. Movie Acquisition Corp. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1571, 1581, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 752.) To establish consp......
-
Sprague v. Equifax, Inc.
...complain, which is set forth at contention VIII, A., supra, is a correct statement of law, taken from De Vries v. Brumback (1960) 53 Cal.2d 643, 648, 2 Cal.Rptr. 764, 349 P.2d 532. The record reflects that the "inconsistent" qualification of that instruction, a "court's proposed instruction......
-
Wyatt v. Union Mortgage Co.
...Civil conspiracy, on the other hand, has experienced an entirely different and separate development. (De Vries v. Brumback (1960) 53 Cal.2d 643, 649-650, 2 Cal.Rptr. 764, 349 P.2d 532.) The gist of an action charging civil conspiracy is not the agreement itself, but the damage suffered as t......
-
Yellowcake, Inc. v. Morena Music, Inc.
...done without lawful justification, by which any person thereto is deprived of use and possession." De Vries v. Brumback, 53 Cal.2d 643, 647, 2 Cal.Rptr. 764, 349 P.2d 532 (1960). Stated differently, conversion is "the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another." Lee v. Hanle......
-
Business torts and actions
...case, and on the nature and purpose of the conspiracy. Such matters are for the determination of the trier of act. De Vries v. Brumback , 53 Cal. 2d 643, 647, 2 Cal. Rptr. 764 (1960). §7:33 Damages The appropriate measure of damages is first the value of the property at the time of the conv......