Russell v. Hill
34 S.E. 640 (1899)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To maintain an action for conversion (trover), a plaintiff must prove legal title to the property and the right of possession. A plaintiff's claim based on possession alone is defeated if the evidence demonstrates that superior title is held by a known third party.
Facts:
- E. H. Busbee, trustee, received a state grant for a tract of land, which was properly registered.
- Subsequently, Iowa McCoy received a state grant for a portion of the same land covered by Busbee's senior grant.
- McCoy, who did not have title, sold timber standing on the land to the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff cut the timber, converted it into logs, and moved them to the bank of the Nantahala River.
- The defendants, who had no claim of right or title, took possession of the plaintiff's logs from the river bank without consent.
- The defendants then sold the logs to the Asheville Lumber Company.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff (purchaser of the timber) sued the defendants (who took the logs) in a North Carolina trial court.
- The case was heard upon an agreed statement of facts.
- The trial court entered judgment for the defendants, holding that the plaintiff could not recover.
- The plaintiff appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.
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 plaintiff who has possession of personal property, but lacks legal title, have a right to recover for its conversion from a defendant who wrongfully takes it, when title is definitively known to be held by a third party?
Opinions:
Majority - Moktoomeuy, J.
No. A plaintiff without legal title cannot recover for conversion from a wrongful taker if it is shown that a third party holds superior title. The common law action of trover, which is the basis for modern conversion, requires the plaintiff to show both title and the right of possession. While possession creates a strong presumption of ownership sufficient to sue a wrongdoer, this presumption is rebutted when the facts clearly show that title belongs to someone else—in this case, Busbee. The court reasoned that allowing a plaintiff without title to recover the full value would be unjust, as it would expose the defendant to double liability, since the true owner (Busbee) could also bring a successful suit for the same property. A judgment in trover must have the effect of vesting good title in the defendant upon satisfaction, which cannot happen if the plaintiff never had title to begin with.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the traditional common law rule for conversion, establishing that a defendant can use the defense of 'jus tertii' (the right of a third party) when the plaintiff's claim is based solely on prior possession. The court solidifies the principle that an action for conversion is primarily about title, not just possession, distinguishing it from trespass. This precedent limits the rights of a mere possessor against a subsequent wrongdoer when the true owner is known, thereby protecting defendants from the risk of double payment and ensuring that only the party with a superior property right can recover the property's full value.
Unlock the full brief for Russell v. Hill