82 CIVIL TIMBER TRESPASS 



right. l A refusal to deliver a chattel to the rightful owner 

 when proper demand is made for it is prima facie evidence 

 of conversion and this presumption will be conclusive if 

 the refusal is not satisfactorily explained or justified. The 

 time of such demand or refusal will ordinarily constitute 

 the time of conversion. If the defendant is rightfully in 

 possession of the property, demand and refusal must pre- 

 cede an action for conversion, but neither is necessary if 

 the property was wrongfully taken, or acts of ownership or 

 other clear acts of conversion have been done by the de- 

 fendant. 2 In an action of trover the law of the place 

 where the conversion took place 3 and that which was in 

 effect at the time 4 of the conversion must be applied. If 

 personal property is taken from land, trover may be brought 

 by the person who has legal title to the land and the right 

 to an immediate possession of the property taken 5 or by 

 the one who has actual possession of the land at the time. 6 

 Constructive possession under a valid title will enable one to 

 maintain an action in trover for the taking of trees. 7 

 The plaintiff must have a right to possession 8 to maintain 

 the action and cannot rely upon the weakness of the de- 

 fendant's claim. 9 However one who fells timber or raises 

 crops on unoccupied or wild land may maintain the action 

 against one who converts the timber or crops. 10 



The conversion of a part of a lot of personal goods under 

 circumstances which indicate an intention to convert all 



1. State v. Staed, 72 Mo. App. 581; Gude Co. v. Farley, 25 Misc. (N. Y.) 502, 54 



N. Y. Suppl. 998; Strickland v. Barrett, 20 Pick. (Mass.) 415. 



However action does not depend upon proof that taking was "wrongful", Foster. 

 Lbr. Co. v. Kelly (Kan.) 58 Pac. 124. Cf . Bynum v. Gay 161 Ala. 140, 49 So. 

 757, 135 Am. Rep. 121. 



2. Ensley Lbr. Co. v. Lewis, 121 Ala. 94, 25 So. 729; Crane Lbr. Co. v. Bellows, 116 



Mich. 304, 74 N. W. 481; See, Ward v. Carson River Wood Co., 13 Nev. 44. 



3. Holbrook v. Bowman, 62 N. H. 313; Torrance v. Buffalo Third Xat'l Bank, 70 



Hun. (N. Y.) 44, 23 X. Y. Suppl. 1073. 



4. Rogers v. Moore, Rice (S. C.) 60; But See, Tulley v. Tranor, 53 Cal. 274. 



5. White v. Yawkey, 108 Ala. 270, 19 So. 360, 54 Am. St. Rep. 159, 32 L. R. A. 199; 



Wilson v. Hoffman, 93 Mich. 72, 52 N. W. 1037, 32 Am. St. Rep. 485; Haven 

 v. Beidler Mfg. Co., 40 Mich. 286. 



6. Skinner v. Pinney, 19 Fla. 42, 45 Am. Rep. 1; Woods v. Banks, 14 N. H. 101; 



Branch v. Morrison, 51 N. C. 16; Martin v. Schofleld, 41 Wis. 167. 



7. McCoy v. Herbert, 9 Leigh (Va.) 548, 33 Am. Dec. 256. 



8. U. S. v. Loughrey, 172 U. S. 206, 19 Sup. Ct. 153, 43 L. Ed. 420. 



9. Moore v. Walker, 124 Ala. 199, 26 So. 984. 



10. Searles v. Oden, 13 Neb. 344, 14 N. W. 420; Lyon v. Sellew, 34 Hun. (X. Y.) 124. 



