Wooden-Ware Co. v. United States - 106 U.S. 432, 1 S. Ct. 398 (1882)

Rule:

In determining damages for goods converted and sold, when a trespass is inadvertent, then the simple course is to make every just allowance for outlay on the part of the person who has so acquired the property, and to give back to the owner, so far as is possible under the circumstances of the case, the full value of that which cannot be restored to him in specie. In the case of a wilful trespass, the rule as stated above is the law of damages both in England and in this country, though in some of the State courts the milder rule has been applied even in this class of cases. On the other hand, where the trespass is the result of inadvertence or mistake, and the wrong was not intentional, the value of the property when first taken must govern; or if the conversion sued for was after value had been added to it by the work of the defendant, he should be credited with this addition. In other words, when the defendant is a willful trespasser, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the full value of his property at the time and place of demand, or if suit is brought, with no deduction for his labor and expense. But when the defendant is an unintentional or mistaken trespasser, or an innocent vendee from such trespasser, the value at the time of conversion, less the amount which he or he and his vendor have added to its value, constitutes the measure of damages.

Facts:

Timber was knowingly and wrongfully taken from the public land by Indians, and was subsequently sold to the defendant company. The government filed an action in trover against the defendant company for the value of the timber. The circuit court entered a judgment against the company in the amount of $ 850 for the whole quantity, rather than the $ 3.50 per cord that the company paid for it. Defendant sought review. 

Issue:

Under the circumstances, was the company responsible for the whole quantity costs of timber removed from government land? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the court held that the case was to which the doctrine of caveat emptor applied and that the right of recovery was in the government. The court held that the timber at all stages of the conversion was the property of the government and its purchase by the company did not divest title nor the right of possession. According to the court, in determining damages for goods converted and sold, when a trespass was inadvertent, the simple course was to make every just allowance for outlay on the part of the person who has so acquired the property, and to give back to the owner, so far as was possible under the circumstances of the case, the full value of that which cannot be restored to him in specie.  Accordingly, the court affirmed the order from the circuit court determining that the company should have been responsible for the whole quantity costs of timber removed from government land.