opportunity of selling the goods if they had not been detained(h). If the defendant, acting bonâ fide under the belief that he had acquired the lawful ownership of the chattel, has proceeded to lay out money upon it, and improve it, and increase its value, the plaintiff will not in all cases be entitled to swell the damages by estimating them according to the improved value of the article. "It may be," observes Maule, J., "that the wrong-doer, who acquires no property in the thing he converts, acquires no lien for what he expends upon it, and the owner may bring an action for the detention or conversion of it; but it does not follow that the owner is to recover the full value of the thing in its improved state. The proper measure of damage is the amount of pecuniary loss the plaintiff has sustained by the conversion of the chattel, that is, what it was really worth, at the time of the conversion "(^). If at the time of the seizure the plaintiff was under an obligation to have the goods sold, then, if they have been fairly sold, the price realized at the sale may be the fair measure of damages, if there has been nothing harsh or oppressive in the defendant's conduct, or that of his agents(); but if at the time of the seizure the plaintiff was under no obligation to part with his goods, but was in a position to retain the dominion and use of them, he is at the very least entitled to be placed in the condition he was in at the time his goods were taken away from him, and to be compensated with such an amount of money as will enable him to replace the goods(k). "It is, however," observes Alderson, B., "entirely a question for the jury, what damages they will allow. Juries have not much compassion for trespassers, and they are not bound to weigh in golden scales how much injury a party has sustained by a trespass "(l).

If the act of conversion amounts to pound breach, the person guilty of the wrong will be liable in damages to the landlord, and also to the owner of the property for damages for the conversion. "It might be difficult in such a case to ascertain the damages, but they would not exceed in the whole the value of the chattels distrained”(m).

(h) Greening v. Wilkinson, 1 C. & P. 626. Romaine v. Van Allen, 26 N. Y. 309. Markham v. Jandon, 41 N. Y. 235. Burt v. Dutcher, 31 N. Y. 493. Scheley v. Lyon, 6 Geo. 530. Barnett Douglass v. Kraft, 9 Cal. 562.

v. Thompson, 37 Ga. 335.

(i) Reid v. Fairbanks, 13 C. B. 729; 22 Law J., C. P. 206. But see Ellis v. Woie, 33 Ind. 127; Silsbury v. McCoon, 3 N. Y. 381; Brown v. Sax, 7 Cow. 95; Betts v. Lee, 5 Johns. 348; Baker v. Wheeler, 8 Wend. 505; Rice v. Hollenbeck, 19 Barb. 664.

(j) Whitmore v. Black, 13 M. & W. 509; 14 Law J., Exch. 19. See Campbell v. Woodworth, 20 N. Y. 499.

(k) Glasspool v. Young, 9 B. & C. 696; 4 M. & R. 533.

(1) Lockley v. Pye, 8 M. & W. 135.

(m) Turner v. Ford, 15 M. & W. 215.

540 Assessment of damages, where the plaintiff has only a limited or doubtful interest in the goods.-Where the plaintiff is not the actual owner, but is only a bailee or hirer of goods which have been wrongfully taken out of his possession, he is entitled as against a stranger to recover the entire value of the goods; but if the action is brought by the hirer or bailee against the owner of the goods, the damages will be limited to the value of the plaintiff's interest in them(n) A defendant who has wrongfully deprived the plaintiff of the possession of goods cannot avail himself of the title of a third party in reduction of damages, but he may show that he was himself the owner of the goods at the time of the conversion, subject to some temporary or conditional right of possession on the part of the plaintiff, with a view of limiting the damages to the value of the plaintiff's limited interest(o). If a man brings an action for the conversion of a ship, and upon the evidence it appears that he has but the sixteenth part of it, this will go in reduction of damages, as he has no right to recover the value of the shares of the other part-owners(p). If it appears that the plaintiff has merely been clothed with the possession and ostensible ownership of the chattels, for the purpose of perpetrating a fraud or defeating a distress, or if he has made a transfer of the chattels, which he has treated. at one period as valid and bona fide, and at another as merely colorable, so as to leave it doubtful what is his real and bona fide interest in the property, the jury may, if they please, give him merely nominal damages(q).

In cases between pawnor and pawnee, where the pawnee has by an illegal dealing with the pledge determined the bailment, and the pawnor has in consequence brought an action for the conversion of the goods, the interest of the pawnee ought to be taken into account, and if the pawnor did not intend to redeem the pledge, only nominal damages are recoverable(r).

Damages for the conversion of bills and notes are calculated, in general, according to the amount of principal and interest due upon the bills

(n) Heydon & Smith's case, 13 Co. 68. Waters v. Monarch, 5 Ell. & Bl. 880; 25 Law J., Q. B. 102. Ullman v. Barnard, 7 Gray (Mass.), 554. See Chadwick v. Lamb, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 518; Fowler v. Gilman, 13 Met. 267; Bigelow v. Young, 30 Ga. 121; Russell v. Kearney, 27 Ga. 96.

Pringle v. Taylor, 2 Taunt. 150.

(0) Brierley v. Kendall, 17 Q. B. 943. (p) Dockwray v. Dicknson, Skin. 640. (g) Cameron v. Wynch, 2 C. & K. 264. (r) Johnson v. Stear, 15 C. B., N. S. 330; 33 Law J., C. P. 130 (diss. Williams, J.). See Hays v. Riddle, 1 Sandf. Sup. Ct. (N. Y.) 248; Baltimore, etc., R. R. Co. v. Blocher, 27 Md.

or notes at the time of the demand and refusal to deliver them up(s). But if a document, purporting to be a bill or note, has been lost or accidentally destroyed, and the defendant is unable to deliver it up, and can prove that it was not a genuine security, and was of no value at all at the time of the conversion, nominal damages only may be recoverable, if the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages at all(t). If the security has been mutilated and rendered valueless by the wrongful act of the defendant, the plaintiff will be entitled to recover what it would have been fairly worth to him had it continued a perfect and complete instrument(u).

541 Of the damages recoverable, where the plaintiff has offered to return the goods, or the defendant has received them back after the commencement of the action.-If in the course of the cause the goods have been returned, the plaintiff is still entitled to proceed for further damages and his costs(x). When the goods have been returned and received unconditionally by the plaintiff, after the commencement of the action, and no special damage is alleged in the declaration, and the damage complained of is not necessarily incidental to the wrongful taking of the property, nominal damages only are recoverable. When substantial damages have been recovered, notwithstanding the return of the goods after the commencement of the action, there has been either an injury to the property converted, or the damage has been the actual and necessary consequence of the conversion; as in the case of the detention or conversion of a riding-horse, where the horse may have been deteriorated by ill-usage, or where the plaintiff could not get back his horse without paying certain charges for his keep(y), the payment being a necessary consequence of the conversion. But the plaintiff, although he has taken upon himself to accept the goods without imposing any condition upon the defendant, has a right to go on with the action, and proceed to trial for the purpose of recovering his costs (2). It is no ground for mitigation of damages that very shortly after the conversion the defendant was entitled to issue execution against the plain

(8) Mercer v. Jones, 3 Campb. 477. Ingalls v. Lord, 1 Cow. 240. Keaggy v. Hite, 12 ml. 99. Booth v. Powers, 56 N. Y. 22. Neff v. Clute, 12 Barb. 466. Callanan v. Brown, 31 Iowa, 333. The presumption that the note converted was worth its face may, however, be rebutted by showing the insolvency of the maker. Id. See Fry v. Baxter, 10 Mo. 302.

(t) Mathew v. Sherwell, 2 Taunt. 438. Wills v. Wells, 8 ib. 267; 2 Moore, 254.

(u) M'Leod v. M'Ghie, 2 Sc. N. R. 604.

(x) Laugher v. Brefitt, 5 B. & Ald. 765; 1 D. & R. 417. Hibbard v. Stewart, 1 Hilt. (N. Y. C. P.) 207. Sparks v. Purdy, 11 Mo. 219. Rank v. Rank, 5 Barr. 211. See Curtis v. Ward, 20 Conn. 204; Smith v. Downing, 6 Ind. 374; Doolittle v. McCullough, 7 Ohio (N. S.), 299. (y) Syeds v. Hay, 3 Burr. 1364.

(z) Moon v. Raphael, 2 B. N. C. 314.

tiff, and did subsequently issue execution and seize and sell thereunder the very goods (which had all along been in his possession) of which the conversion was complained of(a).

Damages, in the nature of interest, over and above the value of the goods. -By the 3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 42, s. 29, it is enacted, that in all actions of trover or trespass de bonis asportatis, the jury, on the trial of any issue, or any inquisition of damages, may, if they think fit, give damages in the nature of interest, over and above the value of the goods at the time of the conversion or seizure thereof.

542 Special damages, far exceeding the value of the goods, are recoverable if specified and claimed in the declaration, and shown to be the natural and necessary consequence of the wrongful act. Thus, where the plaintiff complained, not only that the defendant took his goods, but that he did so under a false and unfounded claim of right, and that the plaintiff was thereby much annoyed and prejudiced in his business, and believed to be insolvent, and that by means of the premises certain lodgers were induced to believe that the plaintiff was in embarrassed circumstances, and that the defendant was entitled to seize the goods for a debt, and left the house, it was held that the jury might give vindictive damages for the injury, over and above the value of the goods seized(b).

Where a carpenter's tools have been detained or converted, and the carpenter, by reason thereof, has lost a valuable job, or been unable to earn his customary wages, damages far beyond the value of the tools may be recovered (c). So if, by reason of the unlawful detention of goods, the owner of them has been prevented from fulfilling a contract, or reaping the benefit of a bargain he has made, he is entitled to compensation for the special damage he has sustained, although performance of the contract or bargain could not have been enforced by compulsion of law(d). If, in an action for the conversion of a horse, the plaintiff claims damages in respect of his being obliged to hire other horses for his use, in consequence of his being deprived of his own horse, he will be entitled to recover the amount expended by him for horse-hire, in addition to the value of his own horse at the time of the conversion(e). A person who has wrongfully taken goods, and handed them over to a third person, is, under certain circumstances,

(a) Edmonson v. Nuttall, ante, pp. 457, 459.

(b) Brewer v. Drew, 11 M. & W. 629; post, ch. 22.

(c) Bodley v. Reynolds, 8 Q. B. 779.

(d) Waters v. Towers, 8 Exch. 401; 22 Law J., Exch. 186. Wood v. Bell, 25 ib., Q. B. 153. As to the necessity for giving notice of such damage, see France v. Gaudet, L. R., 6 Q. B. 199. (e) Davis v. Oswell, 7 C. & P. 801.

bound to pay what it has cost the owner of the goods to get them out of the possession of the person into whose hands they have been wrongfully delivered (f). 543 Damages in actions for seizures under the Customs' Acts.-By 8 & 9 Vict. c. 87, s. 116, it is enacted, that if any action shall be commenced and brought to trial against any person on account of the seizure of any vessel, boat, goods, etc., as forfeited under any Act relating to the customs, wherein a verdict shall be given against the defendant, if the court or judge before whom the suit shall have been tried shall have certified on the record that there was a probable cause for such seizure, then the plaintiff, besides the thing seized, or the value thereof, shall not be entitled to above twopence damages, nor to any costs of suit(g).

(✔) Keene v. Dilk, 4 Exch. 388. Pritchett v. Boevey, 1 Cr. & M. 778.

(g) And see further as to damages, post, ch. 22.