Court Opinion

ID: 6422632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-25 12:01:15.427989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:51:50.620527
License: Public Domain

W. Allen, J.
The property of the plaintiff alleged to have been converted by the defendants was on land belonging to and occupied by the defendant town. The town requested the plaintiff to remove the property to another place on the same parcel of land, and the plaintiff refused to do so, whereupon the defendants removed it to the place assigned by the town. The instruction, that, if the plaintiff unreasonably neglected to remove the property, and the defendants removed it to another part of the lot, doing no unnecessary damage, the plaintiff could not recover, was sufficiently favorable to the plaintiff, even if he occupied under a license which had not' been revoked. The evidence negatived a conversion of the property by the defendants, and showed that they claimed no title to it, assumed no dominion over it, and did nothing in derogation of the plaintiff’s title to it, and that all that was claimed by the defendants was the right to remove the goods from one place to another on their own land. All that was done was in assertion of their right in the land, and in recognition of the plaintiff’s right of property in the chattels. If the plaintiff had the right to occupy the land which he claimed, the act of the defendants was wrongful, and they would be liable to the plaintiff for damages for breach of contract, or for the trespass, but not for the value of property converted to their own use. Farnsworth v. Lowery, 134 Mass. 512. Fouldes v. Willoughby, 8 M. & W. 540. Heald v. Carey, 11 C. B. 977.
It is immaterial whether the plaintiff had an unrevoked license to occupy the land, and we express no opinion upon that question. Exceptions overruled.