Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/196

 EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT

181

ceedings in which it was allowable." Thence merely evidence of one, is to use the term arose the action of trover as a remedy in which conversion in two diverse senses, its old and the plaintiff might have the benefit of the its new; it is to retain the old historical verdict of a jury. theory of trover in one case, and to abandon "No sooner, however, has trover become it in the other." thus established than it begins to extend its "There is yet another respect in which the boundaries, and it very rapidly succeeds in abolition of forms of action enables us to appropriating the whole territory both of rationalize and simplify the definitions and trespass and of detinue. It becomes a uni nomenclature of this branch of the law. Under versal remedy applicable in all cases in which the old practice no person could sue in trover a plaintiff has been deprived of his goods, unless he had, at the time of the wrong com whether by way of taking, by way of detention, plained of, a right to the immediate possession or by way of conversion in its proper and of the chattel. That he was the owner of it original sense. In every case of wrongful was not enough; he must have been in actual taking the plaintiff might elect between tres or constructive possession of it. For re pass and trover, and in every case of detention versionary ownership, therefore, trover was not he might elect between detinue and trover." the appropriate remedy, but a special action "Had the law developed logically it would on the case analogous to trover but not iden have maintained to the end the position that tical with it. There is no reason, however, an unlawful taking is merely evidence of a for the retention of any such distinction in conversion, just as an unlawful detention is. modern law. The difference between a present This, however, was not so. At an early period and a reversionary interest may be very we find it said without scruple or qualification material with reference to the measure of that a tortious taking is a conversion, although damages, but it is irrelevant with respect to to this day we continue to say of a tortious the nature of the injury committed. If a detainer that it is merely evidence of a conver reversionary owner can show that he has been sion. This is an obvious lapse both from the deprived of his property by the unlawful in history and the logic of the matter. If we use terference of the defendant, he has a good cause the term conversion in its original and strict of action against him, and there is no subsisting sense, it is clear that neither a taking nor a reason why we should call the wrong so suffered detention is anything more than evidence; each by him by any other name than that of amounts at the most to a constructive con conversion." version, a conversion in law though not in fact. While if we adopt the wider sense, and mean TRUSTS (Bank Deposits) by conversion any deprivation of property, it A CLASSIFICATION of the authorities relating is clear that both a taking and a detention are to the nature of deposits held in trust by a actual, conversions, if there is no lawful justi Bank in the light of the more recent decisions, fication for them, and that there is no distinc entitled the "Ownership and Recovery of tion to be drawn between them. To say that Trust Deposits," by Albert S. Bolles is printed taking is a conversion, but that detention is in the Yale Law Journal (V. 14, p. 200).