DRIVING BEYOND THE AGREED POINT. 431 



on his return unintentionally takes a wrong road and, after 

 driving a few miles thereon and discovering his mistake, takes 

 what he thinks to be the best way back to the place of hiring, 

 he is not liable in trover for the conversion of the horse.®** 

 ■And the contract to go to a certain place does not confine the 

 hirer to a particular road nor prevent his deviating from 

 the road chosen, if done prudently to rest or refresh the horse 

 or for any other purpose not detrimental to the animal.®^ 

 Nor does mere delay amount to a conversion, where the 

 horse was hired to drive to and from a place without 

 stopping.®^ 



A well-considered modern case departs somewhat from 

 the older rule stated above and holds that a mere diversion 

 from the line of travel or going beyond the point for which 

 a team was hired will not, without more, amount to a conver- 

 sion of the property for which an action will lie. The court 

 says of the old rule: "It must be borne in mind that in almost 

 every case where that strict rule has been applied, the facts 

 have shown that the hirer, in addition to departing from the 

 contract line of travel, was guilty of negligence or wilful mis- 

 conduct or that he injured or destroyed the property while 

 outside of the limits of the contract of hiring. . . . To consti- 

 tute a conversion in a case like that at bar, there must be some 

 exercise of dominion over the thing hired in repudiation of, 

 or inconsistent with, the owner's rights. We hold that the 

 mere act of deviating from the line of travel which the hiring 

 covered, or going on beyond the point for which the horse 

 was hired, are acts which in and of themselves do not neces- 

 sarily imply an assertion of title or right of dominion over the 

 property, inconsistent with, or in defiance of, the bailor's in- 

 terest therein." ®* 



°° Spooner v. Manchester, 133 Mass. 270. 



" Early V. Wilson, 2 Harr. (Del.) 47. '" Evans v. Mason, 64 N. H. 98. 



*" Doolittle V. Shaw, 92 la. 348, 26 L. R. A. 366 and note. The note 

 says, "While Doolittle v. Shaw is a departure from the weight of authority 

 upon this question, it certainly has much more of equity and the spirit 



