Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An element of the tort of conversion requiring that the defendant have deliberately asserted authority over another's chattel. The interference must be so substantial that the defendant may fairly be compelled to pay the chattel's full value.
Rancher Cole lent his pedigree breeding bull to neighboring farmer Miller for one breeding season. Miller branded the bull with his own mark, listed it in his herd's sale catalog, and sold it at a livestock auction. Cole sued Miller. The branding and outright sale showed deliberate assertion of authority over the bull that permanently deprived Cole of control, satisfying the element and requiring Miller to pay the bull's full value.
Artist Lin lent a custom sculpture stand to a private museum for a three-month exhibit. The museum kept using the stand in later shows for several years and recorded it as permanent museum furniture. Lin demanded its return and sued. The extended retention and internal treatment as museum property constituted deliberate assertion of authority that seriously interfered with Lin's control, satisfying the element and supporting liability for the stand's full value.
This case arises out of the exposure of the alleged misdeeds of Senator Thomas Dodd of Connecticut by newspaper columnists Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson. On several occasions in June and July, 1965, two former employees of the plaintiff, at times with the assistance of two members of the plaintiff’s staff, entered the plaintiff’s office without authority and unbeknownst to him. They removed numerous documents from his files, made copies of them, replaced the originals, and turned over the copies to the defendant Anderson, who was aware of the manner in which the copies had been obtained. The defendants Pearson and Anderson thereafter published articles containing information gleaned from these documents. The columns gave appellants’ version of appellee’s relationship with lobbyists for foreign interests, and gave an interpretive biographical sketch of appellee’s public career. The District Court has granted partial summary judgment to Senator Dodd, appellee here, finding liability on a theory of conversion. At the same time, the court denied partial summary judgment on the theory of invasion of privacy. Both branches of the court’s judgment are before us on interlocutory appeal. The court certified its order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (1964). We denied appellee’s motion, while granting that of appellants. Our order granting appellants’ motion specified that the privacy as well as the conversion question should be briefed. The undisputed facts, narrowed by the District Judge with the concurrence of counsel, established only that appellants received copies of the documents knowing that they had been removed without authorization.
View caseConversion requires an intentional exercise of dominion or control that seriously interferes with the owner's right to control the chattel, justifying payment of its full value. Trespass to chattels covers lesser interferences that cause only diminution in value or temporary loss of use. The seriousness of the interference determines which tort applies.
Supporting sources
No. Conversion focuses on the seriousness of the interference with the owner's control rather than physical destruction. Long-term unauthorized use, alteration, or pledging the chattel as collateral can satisfy the element even if the item is later returned intact.
Supporting sources
Good faith is only one factor in assessing the seriousness of the interference. An honest but mistaken belief does not immunize conduct that involves prolonged dominion, alteration of the chattel, or refusal to return it after demand.
Supporting sources
No. Conversion can arise when initially lawful possession becomes wrongful through later acts of dominion inconsistent with the owner's rights, such as refusing to return the item or treating it as one's own.
Supporting sources