Court Opinion

ID: 9767344
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:17:06.413569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:30.652952
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
We were in error in our conclusions above reached to this extent: The jury findings prima facie do establish a wrongful detention of property, i. e., a conversion; and in consequence, plaintiffs seek to apply the general rule of damages incident thereto — its cash market value at time of the detention or conversion. The trial court on the other hand has found that plaintiffs should be fully compensated by a return of their property; in such connection the implication being that the conversion in question was merely a technical one. These findings have support in the record, as we conclude from a careful re-examination.
No absolutely rigid rule may be laid down applicable to every state of facts in conversion cases. Compensation for the injury is the result to be obtained; Field v. Munster, 11 Tex.Civ.App. 341, 32 S.W. 417, affirmed 89 Tex. 102, 33 S.W. 852; and while the wrongdoer is not allowed to profit from his own wrong, the same rule should apply to the party allegedly aggrieved.
Defendant Sparks was not the person with whom this property was initially stored; he testifying that the garage had been locked up after the premises were vacated, to protect some stuff of his own; further, that he did not know who owned the airplane parts at the time, and when told of Minter’s ownership, still did not know that the storage was on a rental basis. There was no diminution in the value of the property during the fifteen-day interval; the detention relative thereto amounting to no more than a technical conversion for which nominal damages may be recovered, plus such other special items constituting legal injury that plaintiffs may establish as having been suffered during the stated period of detention.
Appellants’ motion for rehearing is sustained as to appellee Sparks and the cause is reversed and remanded for trial on the suggested issues. In so far as the appellee McReynolds is concerne'd, appellants’ motion for rehearing is overruled.