Lawyers Mortgage Investment Corp. v. Paramount Laundries Inc.
1934 Mass. LEXIS 1126, 287 Mass. 357, 191 N.E. 398 (1934)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conversion occurs when a party in possession of another's personal property wrongfully claims dominion over it in defiance of the owner's rights, even without an overt physical act of interference.
Facts:
- Troy Laundry Machinery Company, Inc. and Samuel G. Braun each sold laundry machinery to Paramount Laundries Inc. under conditional sale contracts, retaining title to the machinery.
- The machinery was installed in a building owned by Paramount Laundries.
- Lawyers Mortgage Investment Corp. of Boston held a mortgage on the building owned by Paramount Laundries.
- On November 26, 1930, Lawyers Mortgage foreclosed on its mortgage and took exclusive possession of the building.
- In taking possession of the building, Lawyers Mortgage also took possession of the machinery inside.
- Lawyers Mortgage claimed at that time that the machinery was part of the real estate and intended to hold it as its own property.
- The master found that if Troy or Braun had made a demand for the machinery, Lawyers Mortgage would have refused to surrender it.
Procedural Posture:
- Lawyers Mortgage Investment Corp. filed bills in equity to establish its title to the machinery.
- Troy Laundry Machinery Co. and Samuel G. Braun (defendants) filed counterclaims seeking relief.
- On a prior appeal of interlocutory matters, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed orders declaring the machinery to be personal property belonging to the defendants.
- Following that decision, the trial court referred the cases to a master to determine the damages suffered by the defendants due to the plaintiff's detention of the property.
- The master found that the plaintiff detained the machinery from November 26, 1930, to June 13, 1932, and calculated damages based on conversion.
- The trial court judge confirmed the master's report and entered a final decree awarding damages to both defendants.
- Lawyers Mortgage Investment Corp. (plaintiff-appellant) appealed the final decree to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party's wrongful claim of dominion over another's personal property, without any overt physical act beyond taking possession of the premises where the property is located, constitute a conversion?
Opinions:
Majority - Lummus, J.
Yes. A wrongful claim of dominion over property constitutes a conversion. While taking possession of a building does not, by itself, constitute a conversion of personal property located within it, the plaintiff did more here. The plaintiff claimed the machinery was part of the realty and intended to hold it as its own, thereby asserting dominion over it as against the defendants, who held both title and the right to immediate possession. This claim of dominion is the essence of conversion. The wrongful claim need not be manifested by an open or physical act; its existence is sufficient. Demand and refusal are merely evidence of a conversion and are not necessary when other circumstances, such as a wrongful claim of dominion, already prove the tort.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the tort of conversion, emphasizing that the requisite 'act of dominion' can be satisfied by a party's mental state and internal claim of ownership, without a separate overt physical act. It establishes that when one is lawfully in possession of a premises containing another's goods, the conversion occurs not from the possession itself, but from the wrongful assertion of ownership rights over those goods. This principle is significant because it lowers the threshold for proving conversion, focusing on the intent to deprive the true owner of their rights rather than on a specific physical action.
