“an unauthorized act which deprives another of his property permanently or for an indefinite time”
How later courts described this case
- “an unauthorized act which deprives another of his property permanently or for an indefinite time”
- "[t]he gist of a conversion ... [is] ... not the acquisition of the property of the wrongdoer, but the wrongful deprivation of a person of property to the possession of which he is entitled."
- reversing because “[t]here was no evidence introduced concerning value” of the specific items allegedly converted
- “The gist of a conversion has been declared to be not the acquisition of the property of the wrongdoer, but the wrongful deprivation of a person of property to the possession of which he is entitled. A conversion consists of an act in derogation of the plaintiff’s possessory rights, and any wrongful exercise or assumption of authority over another's goods, depriving him of the possession, permanently or for an indefinite time, is a conversion.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
THOMAS, C. J., and ADAMS, J.,
concurring specially:
We concur in the judgment of reversal but are of the opinion that the evidence does not make a case of conversion.