Facts
- The case arose from an incident where Fouldes, the plaintiff, boarded a ferry operated by Willoughby, the defendant, with his horses.
- A dispute occurred between Fouldes and Willoughby during the ferry ride.
- Willoughby removed Fouldes’s horses from the ferry and placed them on the shore.
- Fouldes claimed this act constituted conversion, alleging it deprived him of possession and control over his property.
- Willoughby contended his actions were solely removing the horses to resolve the dispute and did not amount to exercising ownership or dominion.
Issues
- Whether the removal of Fouldes’s horses by Willoughby from the ferry constituted conversion or was merely a trespass to goods.
- Whether intent to exercise dominion over another's property is necessary to establish liability for conversion.
Decision
- The Court of Exchequer ruled in favor of the defendant, Willoughby.
- The Court determined Willoughby's actions did not amount to conversion as there was no assumption of dominion or intent to exercise ownership over the horses.
- The Court stated mere removal of goods, without an assertion of ownership or control, does not satisfy the requirements for conversion.
Legal Principles
- Trespass to goods occurs with intentional physical interference with another’s possession of personal property, regardless of intent to assert ownership.
- Conversion requires an intentional act dealing with goods in a manner inconsistent with the owner’s rights, including an assumption of dominion or intent to exercise control as if the goods were one’s own.
- The boundary between trespass and conversion hinges on the defendant's intent to exercise dominion over the property.
Conclusion
Fouldes v Willoughby clarified that mere removal of goods without intent to assert dominion constitutes trespass to goods, not conversion, with intent being the decisive factor for liability in conversion cases. This distinction has continued to guide the interpretation and application of property law in subsequent cases.
