Hull v. Laugharn

California Court of Appeal Dec 24, 1934 No. Civ. 8801Published

Before: Willis

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the appellants committed conversion by unlawfully interfering with the respondent's dominion over his personal property, and that the respondent was a tenant for years entitled to notice, rather than a tenant at sufferance.

Issues

Whether the evidence supported the trial court's finding that the respondent was a tenant for years rather than a tenant at sufferance.
Whether the appellants' act of removing and storing the respondent's property constituted conversion.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Conversion consists in the unwarranted interference by defendant with the dominion over the property of plaintiff, from which injury to the latter results.”

“The findings of the court on appellants’ affirmative defense, both express and implied, support the conclusion that appellants unlawfully interfered with the dominion, as thus defined, over respondent’s property, in defiance of his rights.”

WILLIS, J.,

pro

tem.

Respondent filed an action in the lower court against appellants wherein the complaint was

[312]

denominated “Complaint for Trespass and Damage”. He alleged actual and peaceable possession and right to posses-session of certain real property, and ownership and possession of certain personal property located thereon, of a certain value, with which he was operating on said real property a licensed game as a business, the good will of which was of a certain value; that on March 29, 1931, appellants entered upon said real property without the consent of respondent and forcibly broke down the wall inclosing the building thereon containing said personal property, took possession of said personal property and carried it out of said building and “thereby converted the same to the use of defendants, and since said time plaintiff has not had the use or possession of said property or any part thereof”; that by reason of said acts respondent’s business and good will were “wholly broken up and destroyed, and no less than $5,990.98 will compensate plaintiff for the detriment approximately

(sic)

caused by such acts.” The prayer is for judgment for the amount above stated.

Appellants in their answer admitted the location of the personal property in the building on the premises described, and that they removed a wall in said building and took therefrom the personal property and stored the same with the Union Transfer and Storage Company for the disposition of respondent, of which fact respondent was so advised. As an affirmative defense appellants alleged that on or about March 6, 1931, Ocean Park Realty Corporation, one of the appellants herein, permitted respondent to occupy said premises from day to day only, in consideration of a percentage of daily receipts of said game; that respondent stated to said appellant that he could and would remove said personal property from said premises within one hour’s notice from appellant that it so desired; that relying on this statement said appellant permitted respondent to take possession of said premises to occupy the same only until appellant secured a tenant therefor; that on March 26, 1931, and on March 27, 1931, said appellant in writing notified respondent that it desired him to remove before a time certain; that on March 29, 1931, respondent not having removed his personal property from said premises, said appellant caused said property to be removed and placed in storage with appellant Union Transfer and Storage Company, at the will

Hull v. Laugharn

AI Brief

WILLIS, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

C. A. Hooper & Co.,

AI Brief