Odger's English Common Law

CONVERSION. 465
an action for an excessive distress no pecuniary damage need
be shown ; the temporary deprivation of the use and enjoyment
of the goods unnecessarily distrained is in itself a
sufficient damage to sustain the action. 1 But in an action
for an irregular distress the plaintiff must establish that he
has suffered some special loss through and by means of the
irregularity of which he complains; he must show, for
instance, that his goods realised less than they ought to
have done at the broker's sale because it was conducted
irregularly. Without proof of some such special damage
an action for a merely irregular distress will fail. 2
A landlord cannot, as a rule, distrain a second time on the
same land for the same rent, unless the tenant by some tortious
conduct prevented his deriving the benefit to which he was
entitled from the first distress. 3
If he wrongfully distrains
a second time, he will be liable to actions of trespass and
conversion.
Conversion.
When one man who is wrongfully in possession of the goods
of another does any act which amounts to an unequivocal
assertion of ownership in himself, such as selling them or
destroying them, he is said to convert them to his own use. 4
He thereby becomes liable to an action of conversion ; he was
probably already liable to an action of detinue. The action
of conversion is brought to recover the value of the goods as
damages, not the goods themselves. It lies against any one
who has come into possession of the goods by any means and
has assumed dominion over them. If on demand by the
rightful owner he refuses to give them up to him, such refusal
is evidence of a conversion to his own use.
If a third person wrongfully converts to his own use goods
i Glynn v. Thomas (1856), 25 L. J. Ex. 125 ; Lucas v. Tarleton (1858), 27,
L. J. Ex. 246 ; and see Thwaitps v. Wilding and another (1883), 11 Q. B. D.
421 (affirmed '12 Q. B. D. 4), which was an action for an irregular, not an excessive,
distress, as the plaintiff's complaint was that the landlord had distrained for more
rent than was due, not that he had seized more goods than necessary.
2 11 Geo. II. c. 19, s. 19.
s Lee v. Cooke (1858), 3 H. & N. 203.
' Lanes, and Yorks. Ry. Co. v. MacNicoll (1918), 88 I/. J. K. B. 601.
B.C.L. 30