Distinction between Conversion and Trespass to Chattel
![handle is hein.journals/orglr37 and id is 264 raw text is: DISTINCTION BETWEEN CONVERSION AND
TRESPASS TO CHATTEL*
JOHN R. FAUST, JR.t
A N INTENTIONAL invasion of the interest in the possession of
personal property is most often remedied by an action for conver-
sion, in which the successful plaintiff is compensated in money for the
full value of the converted chattel.' The remedy is thus a forced sale of
the chattel to the converter regardless of the extent of the actual harm
caused by the interference. Where the interference with the plaintiff's
possession does not amount to a conversion, it may be the subject of an
action for trespass to chattel, in which case the successful plaintiff will
be compensated in money only to the extent of the damage occasioned
by the interference. Because the remedies are so different, it is important
that conversion be distinguished from trespass to chattel.
Logically, it would seem that an action for conversion should be avail-
able only when the plaintiff has been damaged to such an extent that the
converter may justly be required to pay him the full value of the chattel.
However, some of the prerequisite characteristics of a conversion have
little or nothing to do with the seriousness of the interference. As a con-
sequence, a plaintiff who has suffered no more than an inconvenience
may under certain circumstances recover the full value of his chattel,
while a plaintiff who has incurred far greater trouble and expense may
recover a lesser sum because of differing circumstances which prevent
the defendant's act from being characterized as a conversion. An in-
quiry into the requisites of conversion by which that tort is distinguished
from a trespass to chattel reveals that the authorities are unclear or in
conflict. This article will consider some of the problems presented by
the uncertainties, with some emphasis on the state of the law in Oregon.
These problems are introduced by these questions:
(1) What species of property may be the subject matter of a conver-
sion? Of a trespass to chattel?
(2) What interest in the chattel must the plaintiff have in order to
maintain an action for conversion? For trespass to chattel?
(3) What sort of an interference by the defendant will amount to a
conversion? To a trespass to chattel?
* This article was submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Jurisprudence.
t Third-year student, School of Law, University of Oregon.
1 Elridge v. Hoefer, 45 Or. 239, 77 Pac. 874 (1904).
[ 256 ]](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/orglr37&div=20&collection=journals&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Distinction between Conversion and Trespass to Chattel
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most