RECOVERY BY REPLEVIN 81 



article or goods manufactured from the trees if capable of 

 identification may generally be taken from an Innocent 

 purchaser, 1 as well as from one hav'ng notice of the 

 wrongful cutting, 2 however great may have been the change 

 in form since the cutting 3 Where the manufactured arti- 

 cle cannot be identified with the original by inspection the 

 original may be traced by testimony of witnesses through 

 the various processes of transformation into the form in 

 which specific recovery is sought. 4 By the weight of 

 authority it is held that if the original taking was not in- 

 tentionally wrongful and done in bad faith, the original 

 owner cannot maintain replevin if the material has been 

 transformed into an article substantially different from the 

 original form. 5 If the identity of the article wrongfully 

 taken is destroyed, the original owner must bring his action 

 for conversion, 6 and he may then recover the value at the 

 time when the identity was destroyed. 7 



78. Conversion. Conversion has been defined as an 

 unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of owner- 

 ship over goods or personal chattels belonging to another, 

 to the alteration of their condition or the exclusion of the 

 owner's rights. 8 A mere verbal assertion of ownership 

 under circumstances which indicate an intention to deprive 

 the real owner of his property and an ability to carry out 

 the intention may support an action for conversion, 9 

 but even the carrying away of the personal property of 

 another will not amount to conversion if there were no 

 tinent to deprive the real owner of his possession or property 



1. McKinnis v. Little Rock etc. R. Co., 44 Ark. 210. Blodgett v. Seals, (Miss.) 29 



So. 852. 



2. Nelson v. Graff, 12 Fed. 389. 



3. Gray v. Parker, 38 Mo. 160. 



4. Silsbury v. McCoon, 3 N. Y. 379, 53 Am. Dec. 307 (corn converted into whiskey). 



5. Heard v. James, 49 Miss. 236; Whetherbee v. Green, 22 Mich. 311, 7 Am. Rep. 



653; Gray v. Parker, 38 Mo. 160; Potter v. Marde, 74 N. C. 36; Contra, Stotts v. 

 Brookfleld, 55 Ark. 307, 18 S. W. 179. 



6. Snyder v. Vaux, 2 Rawle (Pa.) 423. 



7. Silsbury v. McCoon, 3 N. Y. 379, 53 Am. Dec. 307. Gates v. Rifle Boom Co., 70 



Mich. 309, 38 N. W. 245; Godwin v. Taenzer, 122 Tenn. 101, 119 S. W. 1133; 

 Bly v. U. S., 4 Dillon, 464. 



8. Law Diet., Bouvier, p. 2016. 



9. Gillet v. Roberts, 57 N. Y. 28. 



