Poggi v. Scott
139 P. 815 (1914)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The tort of conversion is a strict liability offense where the foundation of the action rests upon the defendant's unwarranted interference with the plaintiff's dominion over their property, not upon the defendant's knowledge, intent, good faith, or negligence.
Facts:
- Plaintiff, Poggi, stored approximately 210 barrels of his wine in a locked room in the cellar of a building.
- Poggi rented the cellar space, first from the owner's agent, Judge Mouser, and then from the primary tenant, the Sanitary Laundry Company.
- Mouser sold the building to the defendant, Scott, and informed Scott that Poggi was a sub-tenant occupying the basement with his property.
- Poggi was not notified of the building's sale.
- After the Sanitary Laundry Company vacated, two men, Bernardini and Ricci, approached Scott to buy what they claimed were empty barrels in the cellar.
- Scott inspected the cellar, tapped on the barrels, and believing they were empty junk, sold them to Bernardini for $15.
- Scott included a verbal contingency that if the barrels contained anything, the deal would be different.
- Bernardini and his associates then took the barrels, which contained Poggi's valuable wine, and shipped them away.
Procedural Posture:
- Poggi sued Scott in a trial court for damages from the conversion of his wine.
- At trial, after Poggi presented his case, the court granted a nonsuit in favor of Scott, concluding that Poggi had not presented sufficient evidence for the case to be decided by a jury.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of Scott.
- Poggi, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the reviewing appellate court.
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 person commit conversion by selling another's property, even if they are acting in good faith and are mistaken as to the nature and ownership of the property?
Opinions:
Majority - Henshaw, J.
Yes. A person commits conversion by exercising unwarranted dominion over another's property, and liability attaches regardless of the person's intent or knowledge. The court reasoned that the tort of conversion is based on the interference with the plaintiff's property rights, making the defendant's mental state—such as good faith, ignorance, or lack of negligence—irrelevant to liability. Scott exercised an 'unjustifiable and unwarranted dominion and control' over Poggi's property when he sold the barrels. Whether he knew they contained wine or believed them to be worthless junk is not a defense. Furthermore, the court noted that Scott was on notice of Poggi's tenancy from the previous owner's agent and that his own statements to the buyers indicated a suspicion that the barrels might not be empty, reinforcing his responsibility.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle that conversion is a tort of strict liability. It clarifies that a defendant's innocent mistake or good faith belief regarding the ownership or nature of property is not a valid defense. The decision places a significant burden on individuals who deal with property to be certain of their legal right to do so, protecting owners' absolute right to dominion over their property. This precedent impacts bailees, landlords, and finders of property by holding them accountable for any disposition of property that is not theirs, regardless of their intent.
Unlock the full brief for Poggi v. Scott