*1 Cоmpany The Steel Construction v. Rossville Company. Alcohol Chemical 15,654. February 16, Rehearing Mаy Filed [No. denied (with opinion) September 28, 1938. Transfer denied 1938.] Strickland, W. Donald Charles A. Lowe Robеrt A. Ritzmann, appellant. Bielby, Slaymaker,
E. Kohl, G. Locke, Merrell & J. Harmon, Colston, Hoadly, Goldsmith & for appellee.
Dudine, P. was an action for conversion J. —This against instituted appellee. complaint ordinary complaint for an form of general Appellee denial.
conversion. filed an answer *2 The for trial without cause was submitted to the court below) jury. (defendant appellee a The court found for judgment accordingly. and rendered assigned upon apрeal There is but one error and that overruling appellant’s is claimed error in motion fоr presented new trial. The causes for new trial are that by the decision is not sustained sufficiеnt evidence and contrary that the decision is to law. engaged appellant
The evidence shows that was in erecting large appellee’s premises pur- steel tanks on appellee; appellant suant to a contract with that had brought machinery рremises some tools and to said for use in said construction work. work in was While progress destrоyed partially a fire occurred which the completed tanks, adjacent the the thereto and buildings which housed said tanks. Said tools ma- and chinery on, buildings premises, were in and about said they and tanks when said fire occurred and “went through the fire.” appellee
After the fire contracted with the Wrecking Company, corporation, a parts to raze the of buildings stаnding and tanks which remained and to remove all provided the debris. The contract all that salvage the (except from the debris plates certain steel eye beams) was be tо wrecking company. debris, including what was left of said machinery through tools and which fire, went wrecking company. removed Appellant contends that the evidence shows that stopped appellee agents (appellant's) its from and re- permission them fused to entеr premises to salvage machinery; the tools and contends property- over
further than such acts of dominion amounted to conversion. is
There
evidence in'
shows that
the reсord which
-
appellee,
agents
appellant’s
in
instructed
to re
salvaging
machinery
frain from
said .tools and
only
time,
ap
until
a reasonable
insurance
praisers
premises;
appellee
could view
deny appellant’s
ownership
did not
claim to and
agents
said tools .and
but asked
refrain,
safeguard
rights
to
merely
appellee’s
so
to
policy
under a certain fire insurance
to recover for loss
(appellee’s) propеrty
safeguard
rights,
its
but also to
policy,
under said
claimed
to recover for
losses
suffered
firе.
That evidence
finding
is
may
sufficient to
a
presume
sustain
which we
made,
court
wrongfully
did not
invade
аppellant’s right
sgid
machinery
and that
ivrongfully
did not
invade
absolute
*3
property
dominion over said
or
use
of its
and benefits.
every
“The
wrongful
essence of
conversion is the
con
right
to,
versiоn
over,
and absolute dominion
person deprived
owned or controlled
thereof
or
its use and benefit.” First Nat'l. Bank of
Rensselaer v.
App.
55 Ind.
(1914),
663,
666,
Ransford
Fagan
104
Followed in
N. E. 604.
v. Babacz
(1936),
102
App.
Ind.
558,
(2d)
299. See also LaPlante v.
1 N. E.
City of
(1935),
App. 264,
Vincennes
100 Ind.
194 N. E.
191;
Rwy.
Pope
&C. I.
Co. v.
(1934),
App.
Ind.
280,
Therefore said evidencе is sufficient to sustain the was, decision of the court which guilty was not property. of conversiоn of said Appellant contends further when the “sold” Wrecking Company such action constitutеd a conversion of the appellant’s property.
Appellant upon does nоt show the evidence which it relies aas basis to establish the fact that “sold” property. Assuming hоwever that relies upon removing debris, contract for therewith, acts connected wе need not determine whether or because, not said transactions constituted a sale as indicated, previously we have evidence is sufficient .the to sustain the decision that the transactions took place by appellee did not constitute a conversion property. having shown, judgment
No error been reversible of the trial court is affirmed.
On Petition to Transfer.
(In Supreme Court) petition Curiam —The to transfer does Per comply statute, with the Burns’ Ann. St. §4-215 (§1359 1934), Baldwin’s Rule or No. 24 of this wholly сourt. It petition fails to disclose that a rehearing upon by Appel was filed or ruled Court, seriously questioned late and it is whether it com plies respects. with the statute and rule in other рetition presents question upon therefore no the merits Appellate opinion. of the Court It is therefore dismissed. etc., Gaslight, 690, 115 In re Aurora (1917), Co. 186 Ind. N. E. 673.