Forth v. Pursley

Citations

• 82 Ill. 152

Syllabus

<p>. 1. Tbovbr—right of plaintiff to maintain. In trover, it is essential that the plaintiff, at the time of the alleged conversion of the property, have not only the right of property in the chattel, hut also the right to its immediate possession.</p> <p>2. Same—when plaintiff has leased the property. If, at the time of an alleged conversion hy refusal to give possession, the property is leased to a third party, whose term has not expired, even the owner can not maintain trover, as he has no right to possession.</p> <p>3. Same—proof of conversion. Where the proof fails to show that the defendant ever had the actual possession of a chattel, or in any way prevented the plaintiff from using the same, but shows that, while it was leased by the plaintiff, the defendant purchased the same at a sale for taxes, and, before the lease had expired, the defendant refused to part with his claim, this will not establish a conversion.</p> <p>4. Same—when plaintiff claims as mortgagee. If the plaintiff in trover claims title to an undivided half of a portable mill, under a chattel mortgage, and has never made any demand for one-lialf of the property, or for common possession as owner of a half interest, but has demanded the whole before his mortgage became due, and when he had no right of possession, he can not recover.</p> <p>5. Levy—when a taking of possession necesscvry. While, as against the intervening rights of purchasers and incumbrancers, complete possession in an officer levying upon personal property for taxes is necessary before the sale, yet, as to the party against whom the officer holds the warrant, or any one claiming under him by purchase before the levy or after the sale, possession in the officer is not essential to a valid sale by him.</p>