Maguyer v. Hawthorn

Superior Court of Delaware

Maguyer v. Hawthorn

2 Del. 71

DecidedJuly 5, 1836

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Del. 71 (Maguyer v. Hawthorn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maguyer v. Hawthorn, 2 Del. 71 (Del. Ct. App. 1836).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court, (Harrington J. dissenting) refused to non-suit the plaintiff.

*72 Read jr. for plaintiff. Rodney for defendant.

T. Claytok, Chief Justice.

The property came into defendant’s possession by borrowing. His possession was therefore lawful, and without some act inconsistent with the lawfulness of such possession, trover would not lie for it. Merely keeping the dearborn, however long, without misusing it, would not be a conversion, and a demand and refusal to deliver up, would be necessary to this action. The demand and refusal is, however, not a conversion, but only evidence of a conversion. Other acts are equally evidence of a conversion, as misuser or great injury to the thing. 1 Chitty PL 154; 2 Sawnd. PL Ev. 881. Here the defendant broke the carriage; sent it to one place, and the harness to another; let it stand in the road for two years, without returning or paying any attention to it, until it was almost destroyed. We think this a conversion if the jury find the facts so.

Nonsuit refused and plaintiff had a verdict.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The Court, (Harrington J. dissenting) refused to non-suit the plaintiff.

*72 Read jr. for plaintiff. Rodney for defendant.

T. Claytok, Chief Justice.

The property came into defendant’s possession by borrowing. His possession was therefore lawful, and without some act inconsistent with the lawfulness of such possession, trover would not lie for it. Merely keeping the dearborn, however long, without misusing it, would not be a conversion, and a demand and refusal to deliver up, would be necessary to this action. The demand and refusal is, however, not a conversion, but only evidence of a conversion. Other acts are equally evidence of a conversion, as misuser or great injury to the thing. 1 Chitty PL 154; 2 Sawnd. PL Ev. 881. Here the defendant broke the carriage; sent it to one place, and the harness to another; let it stand in the road for two years, without returning or paying any attention to it, until it was almost destroyed. We think this a conversion if the jury find the facts so.

Nonsuit refused and plaintiff had a verdict.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Del. 71, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maguyer-v-hawthorn-delsuperct-1836.