Spooner v. Manchester
133 Mass. 270 (1882)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An unintentional deviation from the terms of a bailment, followed by a good-faith effort to return the property, does not constitute conversion absent an intent to exercise control or dominion over the property inconsistent with the owner's rights.
Facts:
- A defendant hired a horse from a plaintiff on a Sunday for a trip from Worcester to Clinton and back.
- On the return journey from Clinton to Worcester, the defendant unintentionally took the wrong road.
- After traveling five or six miles on the wrong road, the defendant realized his mistake.
- Upon discovering his mistake, the defendant intentionally took what he believed to be the best way back to Worcester.
- This new route was a longer, circuitous path that went through the town of Northborough.
- Throughout these events, the defendant always intended to return the horse to the plaintiff as per their agreement.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff (horse owner) sued the defendant (horse hirer) in a trial court.
- The parties agreed to treat the lawsuit as an action for trover (conversion).
- The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff.
- The defendant appealed the trial court's judgment 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 bailee's unintentional deviation from the agreed-upon route, followed by an intentional but longer route taken in a good-faith attempt to return the bailed property, constitute the tort of conversion?
Opinions:
Majority - Field, J.
No. A bailee's unintentional deviation from an agreed-upon route does not amount to conversion if the bailee lacks the intent to exercise dominion over the property inconsistent with the owner's rights. Conversion is based on the defendant assuming a right of property or dominion over the object, which casts upon them all the risks of an owner. Not every wrongful interference with property is a conversion. Acts that are equivocal, such as a temporary misuse, require proof of an intent to deprive the owner of their property. Here, the defendant's initial deviation was an honest mistake. His subsequent act of taking a longer route was not an assertion of ownership, but rather an attempt to fulfill his contractual duty to return the horse. As he never intended to assume control over the horse against the owner's rights, his actions do not constitute conversion.
Analysis:
This decision refines the tort of conversion by emphasizing the element of intent, particularly in the context of bailment. It establishes a clear distinction between an intentional act of dominion that defies the owner's rights (which is conversion) and an unintentional deviation followed by good-faith corrective actions. By focusing on the bailee's intent to honor the bailment versus an intent to assert ownership, the court protects individuals from the strict liability of conversion for honest mistakes. This precedent clarifies that not every unauthorized use amounts to conversion, thereby narrowing its application to acts that genuinely challenge the owner's title or right to control.
