TRESPASS TO GOODS

Trespass to goods means direct and wrongful interference with the plaintiffs possession of
goods. The interference with the possession of goods may be seizure or removal or by direct act
causing damage to the goods. According to Salmond the tort or trespass to goods consists in
committing without lawful justification any act of direct physical interference with the goods in
possession of another person. Thus it is trespass to take away goods or to do willful damage to
them. This tort can commit against an animal also e.g. It is a trespass to beat a dog or to shoot
pigeons. It was held in Wright v. Ramscot
1
and Hamp v. Darby
2
.
The essential elements of this tort is that
the plaintiff must have at the time of trespass, the present possession of goods, either
actual or constructive or he must have a legal right to immediate possession
b) the possession must have been disturbed by the defendant without lawful justification
on his part.
Trespass to goods is also actionable per se i.e. without proof of damage
But when the plaintiff has suffered no loss, he will be awarded only nominal damages
FORMS OF TRESPASS TO GOODS
1. Taking the thing away from the plaintiff's possession i.e. asportation. This would amount
to crime of theft or larceny, if a dishonest intent was present and to robbery if it was
forcible.
2. Direct application of force e.g. Killing or injuring an animal, or defacing a work of art.
Damage is not essential, and even the slightest application of force like touching is
wrongful.
ESSENTIALS OF TRESPASS TO GOODS
The plaintiff must show:
1. That he was in possession, actual or constructive, of the goods.
The Winkfield, (1902)
Ship M was sunk due to the negligent management of ship W. In claim by the
Postmaster-General against ship W, for loss of mails aboard M. It was held that





though the Postmaster General was no more than a bailee of the mails, he could
recover.
2. That his possession has been wrongfully disturbed. The fact that the trespass was
unintentional is no ground of defence.

P.A. Jacob v. Nanda Timber Trading Co. AIR 1990 Mad 140
It was alleged by the plaintiff that the defendants had unlawfully removed timber
logs belonging to the plaintiffs. The defendants wrongly claimed the timber and
firewood covered by Forest Department passes as their own. The defendants have
denied the right of the plaintiff and set up title in themselves knowing well that
they had no title to the property.
It was held that it is well settled rule that any person when he unlawfully interferes
with the exercise of property rights of another commits an ct in the nature of
trespass to the property, he is liable in an action for trespass without proof of
malice or want of reasonable or probably cause
Damages were awarded to the plaintiff.
Wrong against possession rather than ownership
Trespass to goods being a wrong against possession rather than ownership, a person in
possession can bring an action even though somebody else is the owner of those goods. In the
case of Winkfield the Postmaster-General, who was a mere bailee of the mails could recover
their value from the wrongdoer due to whose negligence the mails on the board of a ship were
lost. His right to recover was not affected by the fact that he himself was not bound to
compensate the owner of the mails for their loss.
A person in possession can sue even without any proof of his title to the goods. A trespasser
cannot take cannot take the defence of jus terti, that is, he cannot be allowed to say that some
third party and not the possessor of it had a good title to the goods. Thus, in the case of Armory
v. Delamirie, the chimney sweepers boy who after finding aa jewel had given it to a jeweler to
be valued, was held entitled to recover ist full value from the jeweler on his refusing to return the
same.

DEFENCES TO AN ACTION FOR TRESPASS TO GOODS
1...Self-defence of Property
If a person has actual possession of goods and another wrongfully attempts to take the
same from him, he is justified in using such force as may be necessary for the purpose of
defending his own possession
2. Exercise of ones absolute or relative rights:
Seizing the goods of another under a lawful distress for rent, damage feasant, is
lawful.
3. Obedience to some legal or personal authority: - Such authority may be distress, execution of
legal process, abatement of nuisance, abatement of sale by the owner.
4. Negligent or wrongful act of the plaintiff himself: - If a person places his horse or cart so as to
obstruct the right of way, it may be removed even by applying force for that purpose.
5. Recaption
It is the retaking by the lawful owner of goods of which he has been wrongfully
deprived. The owner may justify an assault in order to re-possess them
6. Jus Tertii
When a person who is prima facie liable to another on being sued by him, sets up
a defence that the paramount title is vested in a third person, he is said to set up
jus tertii (right of a third person).
The general rule is that a wrong doer cannot set up jus tertii the right of possession
outstanding in some third person, as against the fact of possession in the plaintiff.
7.Estoppel
Estoppel is an admission, or something which the law treats as an equivalent to an
admission, of so high and conclusive a nature that any one who is affected by it is not
permitted to contradict it
In other words, it is an impediment or bar to a right of action arising from a man's own
act; or where he is forbidden by law to speak against estopped to allege or speak the truth.
For instance, a bailee is prima facie estopped as between himself and the bailor from
disputing the bailor's title
8. Rightful Claim
The defendant may plead that the goods belonged to him.
DETINUE
Detinue means withholding of the goods of another. In an action for detinue, the plaintiff must
prove:
That he has special and general property in the goods and right to the immediate
possession thereof.
That the defendant is wrongfully detaining it.
E.g. A, a bailee, wrongfully refused to restore, B's property, lent to him. A is liable in an
action to return the goods lent to him amounted to wrongful detention without lawful
justification, which gave rise to an action for detinue. Distinction between trespass
to goods and detinue
Distinction between Trespass to goods and Detinue
An action for detinue may be distinguished from trespass. In an action for detinue the defendant
assumes the possession of goods whereas there could be a trespass to the goods while the same
continue to be in the possession of the plaintiff.

In the case of Banshi v. Goverdhan, AIR 1976 The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that
detinue consists in wrongful detention of the possession of movable property even though the
original possession may be lawful. Thus a bailee is liable in detinue if holds over after the
bailment is determined
CONVERSION
Conversion is the wrongful taking, or using or destroying of the goods, or an exercise of
dominion over them inconsistent with the title of the owner.
In short, a person who treats goods as if they were his own when they are not, is liable for
conversion.
In an action against conversion, the plaintiff must prove at the time of the defendant's act
he had:
ownership and possession of the goods; or
possession of them, or
an immediate right to possess them.
But without either ownership or actual possession, there could be no conversion in law
unless the defendants interfered with the plaintiff's possessory right
Roop Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1972 J & K 22
Some military men, who found some fire wood lying by the side of the river, took away the
wood under the impression that it belonged to the Government. The wood was used for campfire
and fuel. The plaintiff who was the real owner of the woods brought a suit against the Union of
India for the tort of conversion by its servants. It was held that the fact that the Union of India
was liable to compensate the plaintiff for the loss.