Also known as: use or intermeddle · intermeddling · executor de son tort
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An act of using or intermeddling with a chattel in the possession of another. The interference must be meaningful to support liability for trespass to chattels.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ten-year-old Leo and friends walked past an uncovered trash compactor pit on their way to a creek. Leo reached toward the machine to examine its moving parts. Because of his youth Leo did not appreciate the crushing risk created by using or intermeddling with the equipment.
Trevor retrieved Roger's suitcase of designer outfits from behind the counter and dressed mannequins for a two-day store display. He returned the garments wrinkled but otherwise intact. The unauthorized handling constituted using the chattels without permission.
Cyber Promotions sent thousands of unsolicited emails through CompuServe's system. The messages generated physical contact with the company's servers and consumed processing resources. CompuServe experienced measurable interference with its chattels.
Homeowners invoked a state moratorium to delay foreclosure sales during an economic emergency. Lenders lost the ability to exercise contractual rights over their security interests for an extended period. The state action altered control over the lenders' chattel interests.
A city enacted an ordinance that prevented a church from expanding its building under a newly adopted land-use rule. Church leaders viewed the restriction as an interference with their control over the property. The ordinance changed how the congregation could use its own chattels.
Bidder's Edge deployed automated crawlers that repeatedly accessed eBay's servers to collect listing data. The activity imposed a measurable load on eBay's computer systems. eBay experienced ongoing interference with its server resources.
Liability requires intentional using or intermeddling that produces meaningful interference with the possessor's rights. Courts examine whether the conduct caused actual harm, material impairment of use, or deprivation for a substantial time. Brief handling that leaves the chattel fully functional and returns it promptly usually falls short of the required threshold.
Dispossession occurs when the defendant takes exclusive control and removes the chattel from the plaintiff's possession. Intermeddling covers intentional physical contact or use that interferes with the chattel while it remains in the plaintiff's possession. Both can support liability when the interference is meaningful.
…statement by Thomas Jefferson that he considered "the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises," post , at 562 (internal quotation marks omitted); but it is quite clear that Jefferson did not in fact espouse the…
…moderation and harmony which the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion, has produced amongst its several sects." Intermeddling
…is due, become unlawful; but in the case last put, to read into the contract a pertinent provisional exception in the event of
…Procedure , § 4507 (West 1996). The Restatement § 217(b) states that a trespass to chattel may be committed by intentionally using or intermeddling
…the conduct complained of does not amount to a substantial interference with possession or the right thereto, but consists of intermeddling
Yes. Removing calibration labels from specialized sensors impaired the owner's ability to match the equipment to records and locations even though the devices remained functional. The alteration changed the condition of the chattels and created lasting interference with their utility.
A policy providing notice that bicycles left too long may be relocated can support an argument against liability when the move is temporary and causes no damage. The absence of actual harm or substantial deprivation of use often leads courts to find no actionable intermeddling.
Confiscation and four-day retention despite the owner's protests satisfies the intentional dispossession element. The extended period during which the owner could not use the device for critical work constitutes meaningful interference with possessory rights.