Odger's English Common Law

458 TRESPASS TO GOODS.
a declaration that certain goods are his property without claiming possession
of them or asking for any other consequential relief ; he can even do so
although no such relief could in the circumstances be claimed. 1
But since the Judicature Act, 1873, strict forms of action are abolished. 2
The test of obtaining relief is whether the suitor has a good cause of action
of any kind, however his pleadings may be framed. The plaintiff need no
longer precisely formulate his claim in detinue, trespass or trover. It will
be sufficient if on the facts, which he has alleged in his pleadings and
proved at the trial, he is entitled to judgment in any form of action. And
a claim for the return of the goods or their value can now be joined in
the same action as a claim against the same defendant for damages for
detinue or trespass.
Trespass to Goods.
Any wrongful act which directly disturbs any one in his
lawful possession of goods, however slight or temporary such
disturbance may be, is a trespass to goods. If the defendant
directly causes any damage to the goods while they are in
the plaintiff's possession, or without damaging them wrong-
fully seizes or touches them in any manner which directly
disturbs the plaintiff's right of possession
—
a fortiori, if
he removes them out of the actual and immediate control
of the plaintiff without his consent—he is guilty of a tres-
pass, for which an action will lie without proof of any
special damage or of malice. 3
To succeed in such an action the plaintiff must prove
(i.) that he was in actual possession of the goods in question
(though in some cases, apparently, it is sufficient if he proves
that he was legally entitled to the immediate possession of
them) ; and
(ii.) that by some act of the defendant's his possession of
them was disturbed.
In former times the right to bring an action of trespass to
goods was confined to the man, or the personal representatives
of the man, who was in possession of the goods at the time
1 Order XXV., r. 5 ; and see London Association of Shipowners, $"c, v. London
and India Docks, [1892] 3 Ch. 242 ; North Eastern Marine, #0., Go. v, Leeds Forge
Co., [1906] 2 Ch. 498.
2 Hanmer v. Flight (1876), 35 L. T. 127.
8 As to the distinction between an action of trespass and an action on the case in
this respect, see Clissold v. Cratchley, [1910] 2 K.B. 244.
—