Case ID: ind-app_86/html/0073-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Enloe, J. —", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Masur v. Freyn.
    [No. 12,840.
    Filed April 20, 1927.]
    Trover and Conversion. — Plaintiff must establish ownership, conversion of property and its value in action of conversion.— In an action for damages for the conversion of personal property belonging to the plaintiff, he has the burden of establishing his ownership of the property at the time of the alleged conversion, the wrongful conversion of the property and its value at the time.
    From Marion Superior Court (A 33,160); Linn D. Hay, Judge.
    
      Action by Wolf Masur against Harry L. Freyn. From a judgment for defendant, the plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. By the court in banc.
    
      Bernard Stroyman, for appellant.
    
      Fenton, Steers, Herbst & Klee, for appellee.
   Enloe, J. —

This was an action commenced by the appellant to recover damages on account of the alleged conversion of personal property, by the appellee, of which property the appellant claimed to be the owner. The complaint was met by an answer in denial and the issues thus formed were submitted to the court for trial, and resulted in a finding and. judgment in favor of the appellee. The motion for a new trial upon the grounds that the decision of the court was not sustained by sufficient evidence, and that it was contrary to law, having been overruled, this appeal followed.

Under the issues in this case the burden was upon the appellant to establish to the satisfaction of the court by a fair preponderance of the evidence: (a) That he was the owner of the property in question at the time of the alleged conversion (Gerard v. Jones, Admr. [1881], 78 Ind. 378; 8 Wait, Actions and Defenses 1199). And, also ; (b). the wrongful conversion of said property by the appellee, and its value at such time.

The trial court having seen the witnesses and heard them testify, concluded that this burden, at least as to the ownership of said property, had not been discharged, and we, upon the record before us, cannot say, as a matter of law, that the trial court erred.

Affirmed.

Dausman, J., absent.