Olwell v. Nye & Nissen Co.
173 P.2d 652 (1946)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff whose property has been wrongfully used by another may elect to sue for restitution and recover the value of the benefit the defendant derived from the use, even if that benefit exceeds the plaintiff's actual loss or the property's fair rental value.
Facts:
- E. L. Olwell sold his one-half interest in Puget Sound Egg Packers but retained full ownership of an 'Eggsact' egg-washing machine.
- Puget Sound Egg Packers agreed to make the machine available for Olwell to retrieve by June 15, 1940.
- The machine was stored in a space adjacent to Puget Sound's premises.
- Without Olwell's knowledge or consent, Puget Sound's treasurer took the machine from storage on May 31, 1941.
- For a period of three years, Puget Sound used the machine in its business for approximately one day per week.
- This unauthorized use saved Puget Sound significant labor costs compared to washing eggs by hand.
- Olwell discovered the use of his machine in January or February of 1945.
Procedural Posture:
- E. L. Olwell (plaintiff) sued Puget Sound Egg Packers (defendant) in a Washington state trial court.
- Olwell's complaint alleged a cause of action for the reasonable value of the defendant's unauthorized use of his machine, based on a theory of unjust enrichment.
- The trial court found for Olwell and entered a judgment in his favor for $1,560, calculated at $10 per week for 156 weeks.
- Puget Sound Egg Packers, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Washington.
- E. L. Olwell is the appellee in the appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In an action for restitution based on the wrongful use of property, is the proper measure of recovery the benefit gained by the tortfeasor, rather than the actual damage or loss suffered by the property owner?
Opinions:
Majority - Mallery, J.
Yes. In an action for restitution, the proper measure of recovery is the benefit gained by the defendant from the wrongful use of the plaintiff's property. A plaintiff may elect to 'waive the tort' of conversion and sue in assumpsit (quasi-contract) to prevent the defendant's unjust enrichment. The court reasoned that the right to exclusive use is the essence of property ownership, and its violation constitutes a loss. Citing the Restatement of Restitution, the court defined 'benefit' to include saving the other party from expense or loss. Because Puget Sound was a 'consciously tortious' wrongdoer, it must be deprived of any profit it derived from its wrongful act. Therefore, Olwell is entitled to recover the value of the labor costs Puget Sound saved, not merely the rental value of the machine or compensation for his own lack of use.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the remedy of restitution for the tort of conversion, allowing a plaintiff to choose between traditional tort damages and a claim for unjust enrichment. It establishes that the measure of recovery in restitution can be the defendant's gain, rather than the plaintiff's loss. This principle is significant because it deters 'efficient conversion,' where a party might find it profitable to wrongfully use another's property if the damages were limited to a low rental value. By focusing on disgorging the wrongdoer's profits, the decision reinforces property rights and ensures that tortfeasors cannot benefit from their misconduct.
Unlock the full brief for Olwell v. Nye & Nissen Co.