Court Opinion

ID: 9789550
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:38:16.167319+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:23.107985
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, J.,
dissenting.
Under the majority opinion, if Broche transfers possession, but not ownership, of his widget to defendant, then defendant sells it to plaintiff and plaintiff refuses to return the widget, Broche becomes a converter when he retakes possession. Hornbook law is that plaintiff, not Broche, is the converter. W. Prosser, Law of Torts 84 (4th ed 1971), Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 229. The present case factually differs in two particulars which have no substantive significance. *367First, defendant, acting on Broche’s request and thus as his agent, retook possession. If defendant is a converter, then likewise is his principal. Second, the property transferred was a winch inadvertently attached to a truck sold by Broche to defendant and by defendant to plaintiff. The majority suggests that there might be an accession. Hornbook law again says there is no accession of attached personal property if the property can be identified and is readily capable of detachment, which is the case here. The majority cites American Jurisprudence, I will also. 1 Am Jur 2d Accession and Confusion, §§ 2, 4 and 8. The majority opinion results in the owner of personal property becoming a converter. I respectfully dissent because the common law is otherwise.