Case Name: Barton vs. White's Adm'r
Court: General Court of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1805-05
Citations: 1 H. & J. 579
Docket Number: 
Parties: Barton vs. White's Adm'r.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the General Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, form 1800 ... [to 1826]
Volume: 1
Pages: 579–580

Head Matter:
GENERAL COURT,
MAY TERM, 1805.
Barton vs. White's Adm'r.
IF chattels delivered by plain tiff to defendant foi sale, and he, instead of selling them, appropriates them to hw own use, and refuses to account for them, lhtJ.v plaintiff may sustain an action 'of trover*
Appeai from Baltimore County Court. It was an action of trover, brought by the appellee against the appellant for the conversion of a quantity of paints, lead, &c. The general issue pleaded. The bill of exceptions taken at the trial states, that the plaintiff below proved to the jury that he delivered the goods mentioned in the declaration to the defendant, and gave him authority to sell and dispose of the same fo.r and on account of the plaintiff. That the defendant, after the delivery to him, applied part of the paints, mentioned in the declaration, to his own use, in repairing his vessels. That the plaintiff demanded of him an account of the articles mentioned in the de - claration, and payment for the same, ami üuu the defendant refused to render such an account, or to pay. "Whereupon the defendant moved the court, to direct the jury, that if they should believe the above facts, that then ar,d in such case the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in the present action. Which opinion and direction the county court, (H. Sidgely, Ch. ¿.J refused to give—-hut was of opinion, and so directed the jury, that if they should tie of opinion, from the evidence, that the defendant converted the said goods to bis own use, and refused to account for the same to the plaintiff, that this action would lie. The defendant excepted. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed to this court.
Furviance, for the Appellant.
ItiM and S. Chase¡, Jr. for the Appellee»

Opinion:
The General Court affirmed the judgment of the County Court.