M. L. DEKLE, PLAINTIF IN ERROR,
v.
J. M. CALHOUN, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A landlord brought a conversion action against a defendant who took possession of cotton produced by the landlord's tenant. The Florida Supreme Court held that a landlord with only a statutory lien for rent, without possession of the property, cannot maintain an action for conversion because the action requires ownership or a present right of possession.
A landlord cannot maintain an action for conversion based solely on a statutory lien for rent without possession of the property. An action for conversion requires the plaintiff to have had a general or special ownership or present right of possession in the property at the time of conversion.
“At the common law the action of trover and conversion can be maintained only by one who had at the conversion a general or special ownership or interest in the property with the present right of possession.”
Establishes the fundamental requirement for conversion actions that the plaintiff must have had ownership or present right of possession
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCalhoun owned land and had a tenant who produced cotton on that land. The tenant was indebted to Calhoun for rent and other claims. Calhoun held a sta…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Ownership Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, C. J.
The declaration filed by J. M, Calhoun against M. L. Dekle alleges in substance that a tenant of the' plaintiff was indebted to him for rent and other claims for which the plaintiff had a statutory lien superior to all others upon certain cotton produced by the tenant on plaintiff’s land; that the defendant took possession of the property and converted the same to his own use and benefit, thereby depriving plaintiff of his statutory lien for which damages were claimed. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff and on writ of error it is urged that the declaration does not state a cause of action.
If a declaration fails to allege substantive facts that are essential to a right of action the trial court or the appellate court may take notice of such fatal defect and make proper disposition of the cause. Hall v. N. & S. Co., 55 Fla., 242; Capital City Bank v. Hilson, 59 Fla. 215 and Strong & Trowbridge v. Baars decided this term.
At the common law the action of trover and conversion can be maintained only by one who had at the conversion a general or special ownership or interest in the property with the present right of possession. See 28 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2nd ed.) 657 et seq.
A lien-holder with possession may maintain an action for the conversion of the property. See 21 Ency. Pl. & Pr., 1047; 13 Ency. Pl. & Pr., 168.
One who has merely a lien upon chattels without any right to their possession cannot maintain trover for their conversion. A landlord cannot maintain trover for the conversion of agricultural products by reason of his statutory lien on them for rent. 28 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2nd ed.), 662; Folmar v. Copeland, 57 Ala., 588; 13 Enc. Pl. & Pr., 169.
The common law forms of action have not been abolished in this State as in Merchants’ & Planters’ Bank v. Meyer, 56 Ark., 499, 20 S. W. Rep., 406. Our statute gives the form of an action for conversion and limits it to the conversion of “plaintiffs’ goods.” Section 1450 Gen. Stats. of 1906.
No right in the property other than a mere statutory lien without immediate right of possession is shown by the plaintiff and he cannot on that right alone maintain this action for conversion.
The Judgment is reversed.
Taylor, Shackleford, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morton L. Ginsberg & MLG Props., Inc. v. Lennar Fla. Holdings, 645 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…onversion must fail. “In order to maintain an action for conversion,' one must have possession of the property or an immediate right to possession.” Scherer v. Labors International Union, 746 F.Supp. 73, 84 (N.D.Fla.1988); see also Dekle v. Calhoun, 60 Fla. 53, 53 So. 14 (1910); Seiff v. Presto Brick, 168 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), certiorari denied, 174 So. 2d 31 (Fla.1965). Lennar fails to state a cause of action for conversion because Lennar has not alleged a present possessory right to the rents u…
-
Alford v. The Barnett Nat'l Bank of Jacksonville, 137 Fla. 564 (Fla. 1939)…non-negotiable note has a lien upon the note, like the note here sued for, and may maintain an action of trover for the coversion of that interest. See Robinson v. Hartride, 13 Fla. 501; Wright v. Skinner, 34 Fla. 453, 16 So. 335; Dekle v. Calhoun, 60 Fla. 53, 53 So. 14; Quitman Naval Stores Co. v. Conway, 63 Fla. 253, 58 So. 840; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Citizens’ & People’s Bank, 74 Fla. 385, 77 So. 104, L. R. A. 1918C 610;West Yellow Pine Co. v. Stephens, 80 Fla. 298, 86 So. 241; Fletcher v. Dees, 10…
-
Seiff v. Presto Brick Mach. Corp., 168 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…d the appellants have appealed urging error in this regard. 'Vy’e affirm. There was no right of possession in the plaintiffs at the time of the distraint sale. With no right of possession, there could have been no conversion. See: Dekle v. Calhoun, 60 Fla. 53, 53 So. 14; Fletcher v. Dees, 101 Fla. 402, 134 So. 234; Allen v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corporation, Fla.App.1961, 133 So. 2d 442. It is also doubtful whether the plaintiffs were entitled to an equitable lien on the chattel subsequent to the dis…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cap. City Bank v. Hilson, 59 Fla. 215 (Fla. 1910)
- Hall v. The N. & S. Co., 55 Fla. 242 (Fla. 1908)