Opinion ID: 864170
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: greenline equipment company, inc.

Text: A. WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COVINGTON COUNTY ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT GREENLINE IS LIABLE FOR CONVERSION. ¶11. Greenline argues that the circuit court erred when it found that Greenline converted the property of Covington County Bank when it sold the excavator in the execution sale. Specifically, Greenline asserts that (1) any knowledge it possessed of the Bank's lien did not satisfy the statutory requirements of Miss. Code Ann. § 75-9-401, and (2) that Greenline could not have converted the Bank's property because at the time the excavator was sold at the sheriff's sale, the excavator still belonged to Glenn Eavenson d/b/a Covington Steel Company. We agree. ¶12. A conversion requires an intent to exercise dominion or control over goods which is inconsistent with the true owner's rights. Walker v. Brown, 501 So.2d 358, 361 (Miss. 1987). The trial judge relied heavily on this Court's decision in Miss. Motor Fin., Inc. v. Thomas, 246 Miss. 14, 149 So.2d 20 (1963). In that case, the appellee filed an action to enforce a mechanic's lien on an automobile he had repaired. The justice of the peace entered an order for an execution sale, and thereafter the appellee purchased the car at the execution sale. Thus, unlike the case presently before us, the mechanic never relinquished control of the automobile he repaired. Mississippi Motor Finance, Inc., in turn, filed an action for conversion alleging that the sale was void because appellee failed to name it as a party. The chancery court ordered that the automobile be resold with the mechanic's lien to have priority over the finance company in the distribution of the proceeds, and the finance company appealed to this Court. ¶13. This Court agreed that the finance company was a necessary party, and consequently, that its rights were not affected by a proceeding to which it had not been made a party. Id. at 23. However, we also said that this does not mean that the appellee, who purchased the automobile at the sale made under the judgment of the justice of the peace court, became liable in an action for conversion for the unpaid balance of the purchase price of the automobile evidenced by the appellant's conditional sales contract. Id. (emphasis added). In Thomas we went on to state: There is no conversion until the title of the lawful owner is made known and resisted or the purchaser exercises dominion over the property by use, sale, or otherwise.