Odger's English Common Law

468 CONVERSION.
(ii.) Next, we must define what acts will amount to a
conversion. Any act which permanently deprives the owner
of the benefit of his property is, of course, a conversion. So
is any dealing with the goods in a manner which is clearly
inconsistent with the owner's title. 1
Thus, destroying the
goods will be a conversion, but damaging them in such a
way as leaves them still of value is not. If a man without
right or authority sells or pawns the goods of another, or
hands them over to a third person with the intention of trans-
ferring to him the property or any possessory interest in or
charge or lien upon them, he is guilty of a conversion. 2
But
a mere verbal assertion by the defendant that the goods are
his and not the plaintiff's, though it may be a slander of
title, is not in itself a conversion. " If a man sells a book in
my library without meddling with it, he does me no harm ;
but if he takes it away and sells it in market overt, I lose my
book," and shall consequently be entitled to redress as
against the wrong-doer. 3
A conversion is often preceded by trespass, which may
have been committed by the defendant or by some one else.
But this is wholly immaterial on the question of conversion.
The present defendant will be liable to pay the plaintiff the
iull value of the goods which he has converted to his own
use, although the plaintiff may be also entitled to damages
.against a third person for some previous disturbance of his
possession or detention of the same goods. The defendant
may have come into the possession of the goods innocently
he may not know whose the goods are. But if he has as a
.matter of fact converted them to his own use, he must pay
.the plaintiff their value.
Thus, if a man finds something which the owner has dropped in a
public place, he is entitled to keep it until the owner applies to him
for it. If he then refuses to give it up to the owner, although no doubt
exists as to his ownership, such refusal will be evidence of a conversion
which will be strengthened if he persists in his refusal.
1 See Fowler v. Hollins (1875), L. E. 7 H. L. 757 ; Chinery v. Viall (I860') 5
H. & N. 288 ; and Mansell v. Valley Printing, Co., [1908] 2 Ch. 441.
a Hiort v. L. & If. W. By. Co. (1879), 4 Ex. D. 188.
* Per Coleridge, J., in Cort v. Amhergaie, fa., By. Co. (1852), 1 E *
& B
at p. 120.
;