A gift. Award. Title deeds. plaintiff had a sufficient title to sue in trover, and that the right to the possession of the goods was not in J. a The verbal gift of a chattel does not pass the property in it to the donee, so as to enable him to maintain trover for it . But it is said that the donee may maintain trover for such chattel against a mere wrong-doer ". Property does not pass by an award; therefore, where an arbitrator, under a submission of all matters in difference, awarded that A. should deliver up a certain specific chattel to B. before a certain day, on being paid a certain sum; it was held, that the property in the chattel did not thereby pass to B., so as to enable him to maintain trover for it, though he had tendered the sum awarded to be paid; but if A. had accepted the money, it might be otherwise, for it would amount to a ratification of the award, and an assent to the transfer a. The owner of an estate may in general maintain trover for the title deeds; for "it is an established principle, that whoever is entitled to the land has also a right to all the title deeds affecting it." e SECTION III. SPECIAL PROPERTY. Special property is sufficient to main tain trover. A PERSON having a special property in goods may maintain a Selleck v. Smith, 3 Bing. 603. 551. 2 Saund. 47. a. d Hunter v. Rice, 15 East, 100. e Per Lord Tenterden, C. J., Harrington v. Price, 3 B. & Ad. 173. Roberts v. Wyatt, 2 Taunt. 268. Hooper v. Ramsbottom, 6 Id. 12. Parry v. Frame, 2 B. & P. "A special property may be in one, as in the instance of carriers, while the absolute right to it may exist in another. When a competi tion arises between those two parties, the right of the latter must prevail; but as against all other persons, a special property is sufficient." Per Lord Kenyon, C. J., in Webb v. Fox, 7 T. R. 396. takes the goods out of his possession a. So may a factor, a warehouseman, a pawnee, a trustee, an agister of cattle, the hirer of goods, even for a temporary purpose b. Church wardens may maintain trover for the goods of the church taken as a servant ficient. A mere servant cannot maintain trover k. Where a colonel Possession had purchased horses for government, and they being approved is not sufof by the proper inspecting officer, were sent under the care of a serjeant to the receiving depôt for his Majesty's use; held, that the colonel had not such a special property as to maintain trover for one of them which was taken out of the possession of the serjeant as a distress for a turnpike-toll'. Special property without possession sufficient. A person who has only a special property may, in some cases, maintain trover, though he has never had actual possession. Thus, a factor to whom goods have been consigned, but which he has never received, may bring this actiona. Where A. shipped goods at Dundee, by the order of and for B. in London, and shortly after the shipment A. ascertained that B. had stopped payment, and he then indorsed and forwarded. the bill of lading to the plaintiff in London, directing him to take possession of the goods, and he demanded them from the defendants, who were wharfingers, and in whose custody they were; held, on their refusal to deliver over the goods to the plaintiff, that he had a sufficient title to sue for them in troverb. Possession alone is sufficient to maintain trover against a wrong doer. SECTION IV. POSSESSION ALONE WHEN SUFFICIENT. POSSESSION alone will enable a party to maintain this action against a wrong-doer; for possession is primá facie evidence of property. As where a chimney-sweeper's boy found a jewel, and carried it to the shop of the defendant, who was a goldsmith, to know what it was, and delivered it into the hands of his apprentice, who under the pretence of weighing it took out the stones, and called to the master to let him know it came to three half-pence, and the master offered the boy the money, but he refused to take it, and insisted on having the thing again, whereupon the apprentice delivered to him back the socket without the stones; in trover against the master, it was ruled-1st. That though the finder of a chattel does not acquire an absolute property therein, yet he has such a property as will enable him to keep it against all but the rightful owner; and consequently he may maintain trover. 2d. That the action will lie against the master, who gave credit to his apprentice and was answerable for his neglect a. But where the owner of furniture lent it to the plaintiff, under the terms of a written agreement, and he placed it in a house occupied by the wife of B., who afterwards became bankrupt, and his assignees having seized the furniture; held, that the plaintiff might recover in trover, without producing the agreement. So where the plaintiff bought and paid for a ship stranded on the English coast, but the transfer was not regular; he tried to save her, but she went to pieces; the defendant possessed himself of parts of the wreck which drifted on his farm; held, that the plaintiff's possession enabled him to recover for them in trover b. An uncertificated bankrupt has a right to goods acquired by him since his bankruptcy, as against all the world but his assignees, and may maintain trover for them against a stranger. The possession of land, sinking a shaft therein, and raising ore, is prima facie evidence of a property in all the minerals under the land d. SECTION V. CONVERSION. A conversion may con stitutes a conversion. THE gist of this action is the wrongful conversion of the What conplaintiff's property by the defendant. sist in a tortious taking of the chattel, or in a wrongful assumption of property in it, or in making an illegal use of it, or in a wrongful detention of it after a demand and refusal. Any wrongful act whereby the defendant deprives the plaintiff of his property, even for a short period, is a conversion; as if A. take the horse of B. and ride him, and then deliver him to B., it is a conversion. If there be a deprivation of pro Conversion by a bailee. perty to the plaintiff, it will constitute a conversion, though there be no acquisition of property by the defendant. The wearing of a pearl is a conversion b. Where a bankrupt was required by his assignees, on his last examination, to deliver to them his books of account, which he did; held, that he must be deemed to have delivered them on compulsion; and it being afterwards found that he was not a trader, and that the commission had improperly issued, that he might support an action of trover against such assignees, without any previous demand of the books. If goods be wrongfully seized, though they be not removed from the place in which they were, it is a conversion; for the possession is in point of law changed by their being distrained a. If A. wrongfully take goods, and B. takes them from A., it is a conversion by B. e But trover will not lie for a chattel which has been taken for the owner's benefit, without an intention to convert it; as where the defendant took the plaintiff's boat for the purpose of assisting the plaintiff in saving his property, and the boat was sunk, it was held no conversion f. If a bailee deals with goods contrary to the order of the owner, it is a conversion; as if he break open a box entrusted to his care; or if he draw part of the liquor out of a vessel, and fill it up with water, it is a conversion of all the liquor. But it has been held, in a recent case, that the mere taking away and destroying a part of property which is in the hands of a bailee, who may deliver up the rest, is not a conversion of the whole, so as to enable the owner to maintain trover for the whole. Trover will not in general lie against a bailee for having lost goods through negligence, the owner's remedy being an action on the case k. This action, therefore, will not lie against a 687. Keyworth v. Hill, 3 B. & A. Lord Peatre r. Heneage, 12 Mod. 519. Baldwin v. Cole, 6 Mod. 212. 2 Saund. 47. a. h Richardson v. Atkinson, I Stra. 576. See ante, 530, as to the • Summersett v. Jarvis, 6 Moore, liability of carriers, in trover. 56. 3 B. & B. 2. Cooper v. Monk, Willes, 52. Drake v. Shorter, 4 Esp. 165. Per Patteson, J., and Coleridge, J. Philpott v. Kelley, Harr. & Woll. 134. 4 N. & M. 671. * 2 Saund. 47. f, ante, 530. |