Everfresh, Inc. v. Goodman

California Court of Appeal Mar 28, 1955 No. Civ. 20732Published

Before: Doran

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiff maintained standing to sue for conversion based on its right to possession, and that lienholders were not indispensable parties to the action.

Issues

Whether the plaintiff was the real party in interest to maintain an action for conversion.
Whether lienholders and conditional title holders were indispensable parties to the litigation.
Whether the trial court erred in its determination of damages for conversion.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It has long been established that ownership, either general or special, or the right to immediate possession, is all that is required to maintain an action for conversion, and it is not essential that plaintiff be the absolute owner.”

“Appellant confuses indispensable parties with proper parties. Proper parties are not always necessary or indispensable parties.”

“The tort of conversion had already been committed, and the measure of damages under section 3336 of the Civil Code is the value of the property at the time of conversion.”

DORAN, J.

As reflected in the record, it appears that plaintiff leased certain premises from the defendant in February, 1952, and subsequently, in response to a notice, quit the premises, leaving behind certain property which is the subject of the present action for conversion. Plaintiff retained a key and had access to the premises, and had informed defendant that an attempt was being made to sell the stored property in order to satisfy creditors.

Plaintiff’s president testified that the corporation “had no real interest in the equipment, financially, because it was all under lien to the Federal Government”; that permission was given to leave the equipment there until the premises should be leased. When plaintiff visited the store in February, “the equipment was no longer there, ’’ and “Mr. Goodman informed me that he had disposed of it.” It was plaintiff’s testimony that the equipment had been removed without notice to plaintiff, and that part of it was sold, all without plaintiff’s consent.

After trial without a jury, judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $1,698, as the value of the property converted, with an allowance of $220 for rent. From this judgment defendants appeal, alleging as error that “(1). The plaintiff is not the real party in interest. (2). That the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the holders of conditional title contracts and other liens and interests were essential parties. (3). That the judgment should have fixed values on

[820]

each, piece of property, and should have been for the return of the property or the value thereof. ’ ’

The record fails to support appellants’ contention that the action herein is not being prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, as required by section 367 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has long been established that ownership, either general or special, or the right to immediate possession, is all that is required to maintain an action for conversion, and it is not essential that plaintiff be the absolute owner.

(Bastanchury

Times-Mirror Co.,

Everfresh, Inc. v. Goodman

AI Brief

DORAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief