Case Name: John Quay against John M'Ninch
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1818-05
Citations: 2 Mill 78
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Quay against John M‘Ninch.
Judges: Grimké, Bay, Coleock, Gantt, Johnson, and Cheves J. concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 78–79

Head Matter:
John Quay against John M‘Ninch.
negr?acoachman iv«Scin-ai»tlíhá? freema“to<iriva home. The negrow taken up in Si?em:’a pm™ of New-Jersey, {™m ScondJd; ro cía"m ó‘í obstruction, Ne-Jio'n of trover was v«u§amSJefoi the alleged con-suit ordered.11011-A citizen of
Trover, for the conversion of a negro fellow. This negro had left the service of his master, in the state of New-Jersey, and gone to Philadelphia, where he assumed the character of a free, man, and had been reputed and treated as such 7 Jr for several years. The defendant being in Phi- , . teaelphia, and having occasion for a coachman to drive him to his place of residence in South ,Caroima, this fellow tendered ms services. He wa£ then engaged in the service of a gentleman as a ° ° ~ hackney coachman. Upon inquiry, the defendant was informed that he was a faithful fellow, and a good driver; and he therefore accepted of his offer. Shortly after his arrival in Chester District, his place of residence, the negro was taken up as a slave, who had run away from his master. No previous application had been made to the defendant, nor did he interfere at all when he was taken up, or at any time after. Some time after the plaintiff had got him into his possession, this action was commenced.
• The cause was tried in Chester District, before. Mr. Justice J\ott, who was of opinion the action could not be maintained, and ordered a non-suit.
A motion was now made to set aside that nonsuit.
Not every pos^™i,fp™per-1 sustain”an actipn SííereK^op-1 position to the plaintiff’s me, t0

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Nott.
It is not every possession, nor, indeed, the actual use of the personal property of A A A v that lays a foundation for an action.of trover. It must be a wrongful conversion of it to defendant's use. Hence, if the defendant delivers the - , , . , property upon demand, where the possession is lawful, no damages can be recovered in this action for having taken it. Cooper and others vs. Chitty Blackstone, 1 Burrow, 20, 31. In 5 Burrow, 2285, it is further laid down, that to maintain trover there must be an injurious conversion. In the present case the defendant had done no wrong. He had honestly and fairly hired a man, reputed to be free, in a country where all men are free, to attend to his lawful business. There was no intention to invade the rights of another. There was no claim of property in, or control exercised over, this negro, by this defendant. There was, then, no injurious conversion. there had been any demand made of the defendant, and a claim set up by him, in opposition to, or in defiance of, the plaintiff's right, he might have subjected himself to this action.But there is no foundation for it, under the circumstances of this case; and, therefore, the motion must be refused,
Grimké, Bay, Coleock, Gantt, Johnson, and Cheves J. concurred.