FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 2,800 times | Saved to 338 briefcases
Fouldes v Willoughby, (1841) 8 M&W 540


P boarded a both with 2 horses. P behaved badly and D said he wouldn't carry the horses. P refused to take them off, so D took them from P and led them to the shore. They went to a hotel. The next day P sent for them, but they said he could only get them if he paid for their keep, and if not they would be sold to pay for the keep. The horses were sold by auction.


Is this trespass or conversion?


In order to constitute conversion it is necessary either that the party taking the goods should intend some use to be made of them (intended some sort of ownership use to be made of them), or that, owing to his act, the goods are destroyed or consumed, to the prejudice of the lawful owner.


A simple removal of a chattel, w/o any intention of making any further use of it, may find an action for trespass, but it is not sufficient to establish conversion


The simple removal of the horses by D for a purpose unconnected with the right of the P to the possession an enjoyment of them, is no conversion of the horses


  1. Wasn’t further use made of the horses when they were sold? That would seem to constitute conversion!

  2. spencerian 2

    P boarded a *boat*.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.