76 Pa. 491 | Pa. | 1875
delivered the opinion of the court, January 4th 1875.
Lord Mansfield defines the action of trover to be, “ a remedy to recover the value of personal chattels wrongfully converted by another to his own use 1 Chit. Plead. 146. The talcing may have been lawful, hence the gist of the action lies in the wrongful conversion. Where one has the lawful possession of the goods of another, and has not converted them, this action will not lie until there has been a refusal to deliver them upon demand made. Ordinarily where such goods have been converted by the bailee, the law presumes it to be wrongful, and the action may be brought without a previous demand; but such presumption may be rebutted, showing a permission from the plaintiff to convert the property. So we may suppose a case of this kind: A. purchased a ton of wheat flour from B., a miller, B. delivers to A. a ton of wheat flour belonging to C., and A. converts it to his own use. Now it cannot be that B., as bailee of C., can maintain trover against A., without first explaining to him the mistake, and demanding of him a return of C.’s flour; for here the conversion is not wrongful, but permissive, there being nothing in the transactions which would lead A. to suppose that he had gotten any but his own property.
This example will apply to the case in hand. The defendant offered to prove that he had received from the railroad company no more car loads of oil than he was entitled to. This, as we understand the offer, not by way of recoupment, which was not permissible, but to show that he received the oil in good faith, supposing it to be his own. By his subsequent offers, he proposed to prove, that if he received the oil in dispute at all, it was by a delivery from the plaintiffs’ agents; if there was an error, it was produced by the plaintiffs, and finally that the defendant received the property “at the instance and request of the plaintiffs.”
The offers should not have been overruled. Had the proof therein proposed been produced, it is clear the plaintiffs had no case.
On such showing the defendant did no wrong, there was no wrongful conversion, and the action of trover would not lie. We observe no error in the charge, or in the answer to the points. Under the evidence, as admitted, they were correct. A wrongful conversion of the oil in question by the defendant, would sustain the action, and if he, or the firm of which he was a member, knowingly took advantage of the mistake of the plaintiffs’ agents, and appropriated the property of another to the use of the firm, it wmuld be such a conversion. This is the substance of the charge, and is, so far as it goes, a sound exposition of the law.
The judgment reversed, and a venire facias de novo awarded.
