512 WHEN TllOVER WILL LIE. 



not kcepiug his appointment, were sold to another person, the operation 

 of the Statute of Frauds prevented the plaintiff from bringing trover [Alex- 

 ander V. Comhc). "What was sufficient evidence of a conversion io support 

 trover was much discussed on a bill of exceptions in Giles v. 7\fff Vale 

 Eailway Company, which was to recover quicks and plants from a rail- 

 way company. The plaintiff was a contractor ])lantirig hedges for de- 

 fendants at one of their stations, and was the owner of live thorn plants, 

 which had been by leave of one Fisher (called in the bill of exceptions 

 the general superintendent of the company) placed in a piece of ground 

 belonging to the defendants, and close to the station. Plaintiff de- 

 manded these thorns fi-om the station-master, and was refen-ed to 

 Fisher ; and Fisher, professing to act for the defendants, refused to let 

 the plaintiff remove them. Seven out of nine judges construed the bill 

 of exceptions as meaning that the thorns had been carried as merchandise 

 on the line, and left in the ground of the defendant with their roots co- 

 vered, as a mode of warehousing them, for a reasonable time, in such a 

 manner that they might remain alive; but they all held that Fisher 

 had authority to refuse, and therefore confirmed Wigliiman J.'s ruling 

 at the trial, that there was sufficient evidence of a conversion by the 

 defendants. 



There is a difference between property awarded to he transferred by tlte 

 owner to another, atid property tvhich is actually transferred by the coti- 

 tract of the owner through the medium of his ayrnt ; and in the former 

 case, while the award is still unratified, trover cannot be brought. 

 Such was the case in Hunter v. Rice, where, under a submission to an 

 arbitrator of all matters in difference between landlord and tenant, the 

 arbitrator awarded, inter alia, that a stack of hay should be delivered 

 up by him to the landlord ])y a certain day, upon the tenant being paid 

 or allowed a certain sum in satisfaction. The question here was, 

 whether the property in the hay was transferred from one Sharpe, who 

 was tenant to Hunter, of certain land on which the hay was stacked, 

 bv force of an award, without the assent or delivery of Sharpe, to the 

 i)laintilf. Hunter brought an ejectment for waste, and the whole 

 matter was referred to an arbitrator, and the submission was made a 

 rule of Court. On a balance being struck, pursuant to the award, it 

 seemed that Hunter owed Sharpe £18, which sura was tendered and 

 refused. Sharpe also refused to quit or to execute the award, but was 

 evicted, and then placed in custody under an attachment for nonper- 

 formance of the award. Sharpc's wife sold the hay off the premises, 

 and the defendant was employed to carry it away. It was objected 

 that trover did not lie, there being no property in the plaintiff' nor 

 conversion by the defendant ; but the plaintiff v.as permitted to take a 



