Case ID: or_246/html/0367-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      O’CONNELL, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued January 5,
    affirmed March 22, 1967
    DIETZMAN et ux, Appellants, v. RALSTON PURINA COMPANY, Respondent.
    
    425 P. 2d 163
    
      R. W. PicKell, Salem, argued the cause and filed briefs for appellants.
    
      George L. Hibbard, Oregon City, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Hibbard, Jacobs, Caldwell & Kincart and Paul D. Schultz, Oregon City.
    Before Perry, Chief Justice, and McAllister, O’Connell, Denecke and Redding, Justices.
   O’CONNELL, J.

This is an action to recover damages for the conversion of plaintiffs’ chickens. Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of involuntary nonsuit.

Plaintiffs executed and delivered to defendant a chattel mortgage covering a flock of chickens owned by them. Plaintiffs contend that the chattel mortgage was invalid; that defendant refused to release the mortgage; that as a result plaintiffs were unable to obtain feed on credit and were forced to sell their chickens.

It is plaintiff’s theory that defendant’s conduct which resulted in forcing plaintiffs to sell their chickens constituted a conversion.

The mere assertion of an unfounded lien does not constitute a conversion. Richstein v. Roesch, 71 S D 451, 25 NW2d 558, 169 ALR 98 (1946) is closely in point. See also, Eestatement (Second), Torts §224 (1965).

The judgment is affirmed.