Trespass to goods

TRESPASS TO GOODS Trespass to goods means direct and wrongful interference with the plaintiff’s possession of goods. The interference with the possession of goods may be seizure or removal or by direct act causing damage to the goods. According to Salmond the tort or trespass to goods consists in committing without lawful justification any act of direct physical interference with the goods in possession of another person. Thus it is trespass to take away goods or to do willful damage to them. This tort can commit against an animal also e.g. It is a trespass to beat a dog or to shoot pigeons. It was held in Wright v. Ramscot1 and Hamp v. Darby2. The essential elements of this tort is that  the plaintiff must have at the time of trespass, the present possession of goods, either actual or constructive or he must have a legal right to immediate possession  b) the possession must have been disturbed by the defendant without lawful justification on his part. Trespass to goods is also actionable per se i.e. without proof of damage But when the plaintiff has suffered no loss, he will be awarded only nominal damages FORMS OF TRESPASS TO GOODS 1. Taking the thing away from the plaintiff's possession i.e. asportation. This would amount to crime of theft or larceny, if a dishonest intent was present and to robbery if it was forcible. 2. Direct application of force e.g. Killing or injuring an animal, or defacing a work of art. Damage is not essential, and even the slightest application of force like touching is wrongful. ESSENTIALS OF TRESPASS TO GOODS • The plaintiff must show: 1. That he was in possession, actual or constructive, of the goods. The Winkfield, (1902) • Ship M was sunk due to the negligent management of ship W. In claim by the Postmaster-General against ship W, for loss of mails aboard M. It was held that though the Postmaster General was no more than a bailee of the mails, he could recover. 2. That his possession has been wrongfully disturbed. The fact that the trespass was unintentional is no ground of defence. P.A. Jacob v. Nanda Timber Trading Co. AIR 1990 Mad 140 • • • It was alleged by the plaintiff that the defendants had unlawfully removed timber logs belonging to the plaintiffs. The defendants wrongly claimed the timber and firewood covered by Forest Department passes as their own. The defendants have denied the right of the plaintiff and set up title in themselves knowing well that they had no title to the property. It was held that it is well settled rule that any person when he unlawfully interferes with the exercise of property rights of another commits an ct in the nature of trespass to the property, he is liable in an action for trespass without proof of malice or want of reasonable or probably cause Damages were awarded to the plaintiff. Wrong against possession rather than ownership Trespass to goods being a wrong against possession rather than ownership, a person in possession can bring an action even though somebody else is the owner of those goods. In the case of Winkfield the Postmaster-General, who was a mere bailee of the mails could recover their value from the wrongdoer due to whose negligence the mails on the board of a ship were lost. His right to recover was not affected by the fact that he himself was not bound to compensate the owner of the mails for their loss. A person in possession can sue even without any proof of his title to the goods. A trespasser cannot take cannot take the defence of jus terti, that is, he cannot be allowed to say that some third party and not the possessor of it had a good title to the goods. Thus, in the case of Armory v. Delamirie, the chimney sweeper’s boy who after finding aa jewel had given it to a jeweler to be valued, was held entitled to recover ist full value from the jeweler on his refusing to return the same. DEFENCES TO AN ACTION FOR TRESPASS TO GOODS 1...Self-defence of Property • If a person has actual possession of goods and another wrongfully attempts to take the same from him, he is justified in using such force as may be necessary for the purpose of defending his own possession 2. Exercise of ones absolute or relative rights: • Seizing the goods of another under a lawful distress for rent, damage feasant, is lawful. 3. Obedience to some legal or personal authority: - Such authority may be distress, execution of legal process, abatement of nuisance, abatement of sale by the owner. 4. Negligent or wrongful act of the plaintiff himself: - If a person places his horse or cart so as to obstruct the right of way, it may be removed even by applying force for that purpose. 5. Recaption • It is the retaking by the lawful owner of goods of which he has been wrongfully deprived. The owner may justify an assault in order to re-possess them 6. Jus Tertii • When a person who is prima facie liable to another on being sued by him, sets up a defence that the paramount title is vested in a third person, he is said to set up jus tertii (right of a third person). • The general rule is that a wrong doer cannot set up jus tertii the right of possession outstanding in some third person, as against the fact of possession in the plaintiff. 7.Estoppel • • • Estoppel is an admission, or something which the law treats as an equivalent to an admission, of so high and conclusive a nature that any one who is affected by it is not permitted to contradict it In other words, it is an impediment or bar to a right of action arising from a man's own act; or where he is forbidden by law to speak against estopped to allege or speak the truth. For instance, a bailee is prima facie estopped as between himself and the bailor from disputing the bailor's title 8. Rightful Claim • The defendant may plead that the goods belonged to him. DETINUE Detinue means withholding of the goods of another. In an action for detinue, the plaintiff must prove: • That he has special and general property in the goods and right to the immediate possession thereof. • That the defendant is wrongfully detaining it. • E.g. A, a bailee, wrongfully refused to restore, B's property, lent to him. A is liable in an action to return the goods lent to him amounted to wrongful detention without lawful justification, which gave rise to an action for detinue. Distinction between trespass to goods and detinue Distinction between Trespass to goods and Detinue An action for detinue may be distinguished from trespass. In an action for detinue the defendant assumes the possession of goods whereas there could be a trespass to the goods while the same continue to be in the possession of the plaintiff. In the case of Banshi v. Goverdhan, AIR 1976 •The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that detinue consists in wrongful detention of the possession of movable property even though the original possession may be lawful. Thus a bailee is liable in detinue if holds over after the bailment is determined CONVERSION • Conversion is the wrongful taking, or using or destroying of the goods, or an exercise of dominion over them inconsistent with the title of the owner. • In short, a person who treats goods as if they were his own when they are not, is liable for conversion. • In an action against conversion, the plaintiff must prove at the time of the defendant's act he had: • ownership and possession of the goods; or • possession of them, or • an immediate right to possess them. • But without either ownership or actual possession, there could be no conversion in law unless the defendants interfered with the plaintiff's possessory right Roop Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1972 J & K 22 Some military men, who found some fire wood lying by the side of the river, took away the wood under the impression that it belonged to the Government. The wood was used for campfire and fuel. The plaintiff who was the real owner of the woods brought a suit against the Union of India for the tort of conversion by its servants. It was held that the fact that the Union of India was liable to compensate the plaintiff for the loss. •