In order to maintain a conversion action, the applicant must have an interest in the converted property. He must recover from the strength of his own title, regardless of the weakness of his opponent. It is necessary that the applicant be the owner of the property allegedly converted or that he is entitled to own or possess at the time of the alleged conversion. An absolute, unqualified title is sufficient, but not necessary. A simple right of ownership is generally considered to be a sufficient interest to support a legal action. [143] [144] A conversion occurs when a person performs such acts by referring to another person`s personal property as an amount for the purpose of legally appropriating the property for himself. [21] The action probably developed because there was no comparable form of action in English law as in Roman law rei vindicatio. It was a lawsuit to protect one`s own property, where a plaintiff could simply claim in court, “It`s mine!” [22] The first cases of processing can be found in 1479, where reference is made to an even older trial in this case, when the defendant “transformed” the goods by changing their character and making garments out of gold fabric. [23] [24] The use of conversion generally takes the form of damages equal to the market value of the movable property at the time of conversion.
[173] [174] The processor may propose to the complainant to return possession of the movable property, but the complainant is not obliged to accept it. If the plaintiff wishes to return the movable property without further financial prejudice, he may invoke a related offence. Force can only be used to recover movable property if the culprit is in the process of taking the movable property or if the owner of the movable property is in the “hot pursuit” of the movable property. Indeed, a victim of conversion should use available remedies rather than “self-help” or violence. Lethal force should never be used to recover movable property. Using a thing without the owner`s license or an illegal sale is a conversion. Clark v. Whitaker, 19 Conn. 319 (Conn.
1848). An action based on the offence of conversion may be upheld by persons who have the direct right to own the converted property. Owens v. Andrews Bank & Trust Co., 265 S.C. 490 (S.C. 1975). You can also make a conversion by receiving and holding property from someone who is not allowed to give away the property. This behavior can occur if you receive documents from sources. For example, if a bank employee provides you with checking account records for the bank`s customers, you may both be responsible for the conversion because the employee probably does not have permission from their employer to hand over a customer`s records.
But the legal analysis is not that simple, and whether or not you can be held responsible for the conversion in these circumstances depends on whether the documents you receive are originals or copies. For the purposes of processing, “intention” is simply understood to mean the purpose of owning or exercising ownership rights in the processing. Accordingly, a party is responsible for the conversion regardless of its knowledge of the ownership status of the property. For example, a person who takes a necklace from the floor and resells it because they mistakenly believed it was abandoned still transformed that necklace. The owner of a partial share of property may be held liable for the conversion of the property if he wrongly removes it from the possession of another person or performs another act equivalent to a conversion. [142] Typical defendants in a conversion action are:[142] A representative appointed by a procuring entity to possess property is generally recognized as having a sufficient interest in the assets to be able to maintain an action for conversion against a third party. Some jurisdictions believe that the agent must have more than just a right of ownership. A similar result was achieved when the servant left the property in the possession of the defendant, who then converted it. If a sheriff assigned movable property and gave it to a person to keep, the person was only the sheriff`s servant, and since he had no interest in things, he could not support any action for his conversion.
[134] [135] [136] The means of conversion are generally admissible, so the action can be brought by the assignee. An official who is in possession of a property may ignore a transformation of the property by a criminal and sell the property upon its execution, the buyer then having the right to sue the culprit for the conversion of the property. [137] A purchaser of personal property or shares thereof who acquires ownership by or by transfer may maintain a conversion action brought after the transfer even if he has not yet acquired beneficial ownership of the property. [138] A creditor who has no interest cannot, as a general rule, be a plaintiff in an action for recovery of a debtor`s converted assets. [139] An owner of real estate may bring an action for conversion, but at the time of conversion, he must be in physical possession of the land and the property separated from the land. [140] The land itself cannot be converted or “stolen” by property. On the contrary, the common law recognizes and rewards adverse possession as a form of undocumented ownership of neglected land (which is documented when challenged or registered by deed or survey or other), lawsuits for trespassing or moving land against which documentary rights are grounds or a defense. For a transformation to take place, it had to be lost earlier and found by someone other than the owner. It was possible that the property could be converted. [33] Converted items included a dog,[34] money,[35] and tax revenue. [36] Land could not be the subject of an action in Trover because it could not be lost, then found and transformed.
The same was true for sand and gravel, wood, grain and accessories as long as they were considered part of the country. No action could be taken in Trover. As soon as there was a separation from the land, these became personal possessions, and Trover could be maintained due to the distance from the land. [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] A joint conversion is a refusal to transfer ownership of the movable property to a person who has the right to do so. As a general rule, this is considered to be a sufficiently qualified interference with the applicant`s right of control. [110] If the detention is weak or is not considered serious, it is not considered a conversion. A workshop that delays the delivery of an automobile by 30 minutes does not prescribe a conversion. [110] [111] [112] The same applies to a share certificate. [113] The storage of furniture or other property to prevent damage or theft is also not a conversion in itself if the owner is properly informed of its location.
[110] [114] [115] [116] If the delay is long or deliberate, it is a conversion.