CHAPTER II. OF THE NEGLIGENT USE OF REAL PROPERTY. Where one man, by want of proper care in the management of his land, or the buildings thereon, causes injury to the person or property (real or personal) of another, he is liable in damages to that other. For example 1. Where he overloads the floor of a warehouse, so that the floor falls on, and damages the goods of another, which are in the room beneath. (b) 2. Where he makes an excavation in his land without due care, which causes a building on adjoining land to fall.(e) 3. Where a railway company leave open their gates on a level crossing, through which cattle stray on to the line, and are injured. (d) Unless the party injured was himself negligent, and by his own conduct contributed towards the happening of the mischief [see post, Part IV. Chap. I.]. FIRE. At common law, every person who lights a fire on his own premises is responsible for its safe keeping. Unless. 1. The fire is spread by the act of God. 2. The fire begins accidentally.(e) (b) Edwards v. Halinder, Poph. 46. (c) Trower v. Chadwick, 3 Sc. 722. (d) Fawcett v. Midland Railway Company, 16 Q. B. 618. [NOTE. Accidentally means (i) Originating through mere chance, and without negligence; or (ii) The cause of which cannot be traced.(a)] As to the spreading of fires from locomotive engines, &c., see post, Part VII.] (a) Pilliter v. Phippard, 11 Q. B. 357. PART III. OF THE INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHTS OF OWNERS OF CHATTELS. CHAPTER I. TRESPASS AND CONVERSION. I. TRESPASS TO CHATTELS is the wrongful intermeddling with the goods of another, to which that other has a present right of possession. Illustration. Upon the Custom House Quay there was a hut, in which certain porters each had a box, where they could deposit parcels, until a ship was ready to receive them. Bushell, a porter, put in certain goods, and so deposited them as to block the opening of the box of Miller, another porter. Miller, in order to get at his box, moved Bushell's parcel about a yard towards the door, and did not replace it. The goods in consequence were lost. Bushell sued Miller for a conversion of the goods. But the court held that there was no conversion, though if he had brought trespass he might have recovered.(b) II. CONVERSION is the unauthorized disposal of the chattels of another, by which that other, having a present right to them, is deprived of the same. § SUCH UNAUTHORIZED DISPOSAL MAY BE EXERCISED BY— 1. The taking or using the chattels. (b) Bushell v. Miller, 1 Str. 128. (i) For the benefit of the wrongdoer himself. Illustration. One H. K. Bailey, falsely pretend ing that he was buying for one Seddon, obtained from Fowler & Co. delivery of thirteen bales of cotton, of the value of £244 19s. Ed. Bailey sold the cotton to and received the price from Hollins & Co., cotton brokers, who sold it to Nicholls & Co., by whom the cotton was spun into yarn. On discovering the fraud of Bailey, Fowler & Co. sued Hollins & Co. in trover for the cotton, and the court held that they were liable for the conversion.(a) 2. By the consumption, destruction, or material alteration of the chattel. Illustration. Atkinson drew some of the contents out of a vessel containing liquor, the property of Richardson, and filled it up with water. In an action of trover it was held that this was a conversion of all the contents of the vessel.(b) 3. By an unqualified refusal to deliver up, after demand, what has lawfully come into the possession of the wrongdoer. Illustration. Baldwin was a journeyman carpenter, who was sent by his master to work for hire in the Queen's yard. On his declining to go to work any longer, the surveyor of the works refused to allow him to remove his tools, pretending a usage to detain them, to enforce workmen to continue until the Queen's work was done. In an action of trover for the tools, this was held to be an act of conversion. (c) (a) Fowler v. Hollins, L. R. 7 Q. B. 616. 4. By exercising a dominion over the goods, which is inconsistent with the dominion of the owner at all times and places. Illustration. Hiort & Co., of Hull, corn merchants, were in the habit of employing one Grimmett as their broker. Grimmett, with a view to commit a fraud, directed Hiort & Co. to send to Bott, of Birmingham, a delivery order for certain barley (which he pretended to have sold to Bott), making the barley deliverable to the order of the consignor, or the consignee, and to forward the barley by the London and North-Western Railway. Hiort & Co. followed their broker's directions; and the latter then went to Bott, and told him that the delivery order had been sent to him by mistake, and induced him to indorse it to him, Grimmett, Hiort & Co.'s agent, "in order to save expense," Bott believing he was taking the best step to secure a return of the barley to Hiort & Co. Grimmett then obtained delivery of the barley, sold it, and absconded. In an action of trover for the barley by Hiort & Co., against Bott, the court held that there had been a conversion by the latter, and that he was liable for the value of the barley. (d) THE ACT OF CONVERSION CANNOT BE PURGED. Illustration. Hiort & Co. from time to time forwarded large quantities of grain by the London and NorthWestern Railway to their own order at the company's goods station at Birmingham. On del 24th November, 1872, the company received a delivery order of Hiort & Co. for sixty quarters of oats in favour of George Tarpler's order. Tarpler had indorsed it in favour of George (d) Hiort v. Bott, L. R. 9 Ex. 86. |