Spooner v. Manchester - 133 Mass. 270 (1881)

Rule:

Conversion is based upon the idea of an assumption by the defendant of a right of property or a right of dominion over the thing converted, which casts upon him all the risks of an owner, and it is therefore not every wrongful intermeddling with, or wrongful asportation or wrongful detention of, personal property, that amounts to a conversion. Acts which themselves imply an assertion of title or of a right of dominion over personal property, such as a sale, letting or destruction of it, amount to a conversion, even although the defendant may have honestly mistaken his rights; but acts which do not in themselves imply an assertion of title, or of a right of dominion over such property, will not sustain an action of trover, unless done with the intention to deprive the owner of it permanently or temporarily, or unless there has been a demand for the property and a neglect or refusal to deliver it, which are evidence of a conversion, because they are evidence that the defendant in withholding it claims the right to withhold it, which is a claim of a right of dominion over it.

Facts:

Defendant hired plaintiff's horse and unintentionally took the wrong road on his return. The wrong turn caused him to keep the horse longer than anticipated. When the horse was injured on the return trip, plaintiff brought the present lawsuit. The trial court held that defendant was not guilty of negligence or misuse of the horse, but found for plaintiff nonetheless. Defendant appealed. 

Issue:

Under the circumstances, did the trial court err in ruling in plaintiff’s favor? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the court reversed the decision of the trial court. The court held that plaintiff's action was one of conversion. In order to prove defendant had been guilty of conversion, plaintiff was required to prove that defendant exercised control over the horse in a way that intentionally deprived plaintiff of his rights to possession or ownership of the horse. The court held that defendant's actions with the horse were not inconsistent with his contract with plaintiff or with plaintiff's ownership of the horse. The fact that defendant made a mistake in his route did not amount to a conversion of the animal.