McNeill v. Minter

182 S.E.2d 647, 12 N.C. App. 144, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1306
CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina
DecidedAugust 4, 1971
Docket7111DC464
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 182 S.E.2d 647 (McNeill v. Minter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McNeill v. Minter, 182 S.E.2d 647, 12 N.C. App. 144, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1306 (N.C. Ct. App. 1971).

Opinion

BRITT, Judge.

Defendant assigns as error the conclusion of law of the trial judge that “[t]he plaintiff was damaged by defendant’s deceit and conversion of real property to the extent and in the amount of $650.00, with six (6%) percent interest thereon from June 25,1968.” The assignment of error must be sustained.

“Conversion” is defined as “an unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over goods or personal chattels belonging to another, to the alteration of their condition or the exclusion of an owner’s rights.” (Emphasis ours.) Wall v. Colvard, Inc., 268 N.C. 43, 149 S.E. 2d 559 (1966) ; Peed v. *146 Burleson’s, Inc., 244 N.C. 437, 94 S.E. 2d 351 (1956) ; 89 C.J.S., Trover & Conversion, § 1, p. 531 (1955). While there appears to be no North Carolina case that expressly so holds, the language quoted above indicates that conversion applies only to goods and personal property and does not apply to real property. Other jurisdictions have expressed this view. See Graner v. Hogsett, 84 Cal. App. 2d 657, 191 P. 2d 497 (1948) and Eadus v. Hunter, 268 Mich. 233, 256 N.W. 323 (1934). C.J.S. states: “An action of trover lies only for the conversion of personal chattels. Such action does not lie for a wrongful deprivation of, or for injuries to, land or other real property . ...” 89 C.J.S., Trover & Conversion, § 11, p. 538 (1955).

As the trial judge erroneously concluded that there was a conversion of real property, the judgment based upon that conclusion is

Reversed.

Judges Morris and Parker concur.

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

Related

Tai Sports, Inc. v. Hall
2012 NCBC 62 (North Carolina Business Court, 2012)
Norman v. Nash Johnson & Sons' Farms, Inc.
537 S.E.2d 248 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2000)
Silverman v. Miller (In Re Silverman)
155 B.R. 362 (E.D. North Carolina, 1993)
United States v. Gaskins
748 F. Supp. 366 (E.D. North Carolina, 1990)
Gallimore v. Sink
218 S.E.2d 181 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
182 S.E.2d 647, 12 N.C. App. 144, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcneill-v-minter-ncctapp-1971.