Case Name: Patrick Coughlin vs. Henry F. Ball
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1862-09
Citations: 4 Allen 334
Docket Number: 
Parties: Patrick Coughlin vs. Henry F. Ball.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 86
Pages: 334–335

Head Matter:
Patrick Coughlin vs. Henry F. Ball.
The wrongful taking of personal property from the owner’s possession is of itself a conversion ; although the taker delivers it to one who was negotiating with the owner for its purchase, and had conspired with a creditor of the owner to purchase it on credit, in order that the price might be attached on a trustee process, and the taker of the propertjr did not know of or participate in the conspiracy.
Tort for the conversion of a cow.
At the trial in the superior court, before Rockwell, J., it appeared that on the 6th of April 1861 the plaintiff owned the cow, and bargained to sell her to William K. Palmer; and there was evidence on the part of the plaintiff that the sale was not to take effect until payment of the price, and on the part of the defendant that the sale was on credit. There was also evidence to show that Palmer conspired with Edward Moore, a creditor of the plaintiff, to purchase the cow on credit, in order that the price might be attached on a trustee process which was instituted in favor of Moore against the plaintiff, and delivered to the defendant as an officer for service; and that, while the negotiations were in progress, the defendant took the cow from the possession of the plaintiff’s son, though not by way of attachment on the writ, and tied her up in the barn of Palmer, by whom she was thereafter retained. No exceptions were taken to the instructions of the judge to the jury as to what constitutes a conversion, but the defendant requested him to instruct them that “ if they believed there was a conspiracy on the part of Palmer and Moore, they must further find that defendant was knowing to said conspiracy and participated therein, in order to make what he did in regard to the cow such a conversion or intermeddling with the same as to render defendant liable in this action.” The judge declined so to rule, and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant alleged exceptions.
J. Branning, for the defendant.
M. Wilcox, for the plaintiff.

Opinion:
Metcalf, J.
Under the instructions given to the jury, they have found that the defendant wrongfully took from the possession of the plaintiff a cow which was his property, and that he was thereby deprived of her. That a wrongful taking of property from the owner's possession is one mode of converting it to the wrongdoer's use is a settled and familiar rule of law. No part of the judge's instructions furnishes to the defendant any legal ground of exception.
The judge rightly declined to give the last instruction for which the defendant asked. It would have been erroneous, if given. Exceptions overruled.