Opinion ID: 2617670
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Conversion of Livestock

Text: Finally, Wentz claims that the trial court erred in placing the burden of proof of disproving Sprouse's claim that Wentz converted some of Sprouse's livestock on Wentz and that there is no substantial evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that Wentz converted the sheep. In Sprouse's complaint, he alleged that Wentz had failed to deliver 1,528 miscellaneous ewes, lambs, and other sheep. Subsequently, in its decision, the court stated that because Wentz had not presented any evidence to refute this claim in the complaint Wentz was liable to Sprouse for those sheep. Sprouse conceded at oral argument that the evidence presented at trial did not go to prove the conversion alleged in the complaint. Therefore, we must also reverse the district court's award for missing livestock.