Odger's English Common Law

;
462 DETINUE.
(ii.) that the defendant is in possession of the goods ; and
(iii.) that he wrongfully withholds them from the plaintiff.
On proof of these facts, the plaintiff is entitled to a
judgment in a special form, which orders the defendant to
return the goods to the plaintiff or to pay him their value,
and also to pay him damages for the detention of them. But
^although this form of judgment appears to leave to the
defendant liberty either to return the goods or pay the
plaintiff their value as he pleases, the law no longer gives
the defendant such an option. If the plaintiff insists upon it,
the defendant must return the goods, if he still has them,
or go to prison
1
he is not entitled to keep the goods on payment
of the sum which the jury has assessed as their value,
-except by the plaintiff's consent.
The defence most usually set up in an action of detinue is
that the defendant has a lien on the goods. A lien, as we
have seen, 2 is a right to retain possession of the goods of
another until that other pays a debt or does something else
which he has agreed to do. But a lien is lost as soon as the
goods return into the possession of their owner ; hence a lien
is never a defence to an action of trespass.
Another defence is that the defendant found the goods and
-did not know or was not satisfied that the plaintiff was the
rightful owner. When a chattel, is found in a place to which
the public have access, the finder acquires a title good
-against all the world except the true owner. 3
Or the defendant may say that he is joint owner of the
-property with the plaintiff', and so entitled to detain it
;
4 or
he may assert that the plaintiff is one of two or more joint
-owners who delivered the property into his hands, and that
the others have not demanded the re-delivery of the goods.
Beplevin.
This is an action of tort, in which the plaintiff claims
damages for the seizure of his goods and the unjust
1 Order XLVIII., r. 1 ; and see Hymasv. Ogden, [1905] 1 K.B. 246 ; Bailey v. Gill,
[1919] 1 K. B. 41.
2 Ante, p. 28; and see Donald v. Suckling (1866), L1
. R. 1 Q. B. 585.
'
3 Armory v. Delamirie (1722), 1 Smith, L. C, 12th ed., 396.
* See The Walter D. Wallet, [1893] P. 202.