Odger's English Common Law

need not do so unless he wishes
;
TRESPASS TO GOODS. 461
1 and he cannot legally do
so unless damage has in fact been done.
Or it may be that the plaintiff had brought his goods on
to the defendant's premises, and had there so mixed them
with the goods of the defendant that the defendant in taking
possession of his own unavoidably committed a trespass to
the plaintiff's goods. 2
Or again the defendant may prove that
the plaintiff's goods were obstructing the highway and that
he had authority to remove them under the provisions of
some statute. 3
Again, the plaintiff may have authorised the
defendant to seize his goods in certain events—under a bill
of sale or otherwise. 4
Lastly, the alleged trespass might have been committed in
executing the process of the law. In such a case, if the act
is done in obedience to an order of a Court of competent
authority acting within its jurisdiction, the plaintiff cannot
succeed in his action.
Detinue.
The action of detinue lies against any one who unlawfully
detains goods from the owner or other person entitled to
the immediate possession of them. The object of the action
is to compel him to return the goods to the plaintiff and pay
him some damages for the deprivation of them. But if
the defendant cannot return the goods, he must pay the
plaintiff their value. The action is not confined, as is an
action of trespass, to the person who directly violates the
plaintiff's right of possession ; it lies against any one who
has subsequently come into possession of the goods, whether
innocently or in collusion with the original trespasser.
Hence, in order to succeed in an action of detinue, the
plaintiff must prove
—
(i.) that he has a right to the immediate possession of the
goods
;
1 Tyrringham's Case (1584), 4 Rep. 36 a ; Carruthers v. Hollis (1838), 8 A. & E.
113.
2 Wyatt v. White (1860), 5 H. & N. 371.
s Le Neve" v. Vestry of Mile End (1858),
Chamberlin (1861), 6 H. & N. 540.
8 E. & B. 1054 ; and see Morant\„
* See ante, p. 32.