{"title":"转换案例的操作","authors":"J. Baker","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198847809.003.0021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The action of detinue was unsatisfactory for plaintiffs in that defendants could escape by waging law, and indeed could truthfully deny a detainer of goods if they had destroyed or parted with them. The action on the case offered a solution. This chapter shows how it was first used against bailees who converted goods by damaging or destroying them. The extension to finders, including constructive ‘finders’, by a subtle shift in the meaning of ‘conversion’, provoked a controversy between the King’s Bench and the Common Pleas similar to that over the use of assumpsit to replace debt. It was resolved in favour of allowing the action, but with the qualification that not every detainer was a conversion. In its settled form, ‘trover and conversion’ was an action to try the relative title of the parties rather than an action in tort based on fault.","PeriodicalId":197105,"journal":{"name":"Baker and Milsom Sources of English Legal History","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Actions on the case for conversion\",\"authors\":\"J. Baker\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780198847809.003.0021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The action of detinue was unsatisfactory for plaintiffs in that defendants could escape by waging law, and indeed could truthfully deny a detainer of goods if they had destroyed or parted with them. The action on the case offered a solution. This chapter shows how it was first used against bailees who converted goods by damaging or destroying them. The extension to finders, including constructive ‘finders’, by a subtle shift in the meaning of ‘conversion’, provoked a controversy between the King’s Bench and the Common Pleas similar to that over the use of assumpsit to replace debt. It was resolved in favour of allowing the action, but with the qualification that not every detainer was a conversion. In its settled form, ‘trover and conversion’ was an action to try the relative title of the parties rather than an action in tort based on fault.\",\"PeriodicalId\":197105,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Baker and Milsom Sources of English Legal History\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Baker and Milsom Sources of English Legal History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198847809.003.0021\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Baker and Milsom Sources of English Legal History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198847809.003.0021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对于原告来说,扣留的行为是不令人满意的,因为被告可以通过发动法律来逃避,而且确实可以真实地拒绝扣留者的货物,如果他们已经销毁或分开了货物。对此案采取的行动提供了一个解决方案。本章展示了它最初是如何被用来对付通过破坏或毁坏货物来转换货物的受托人的。通过微妙地改变“转换”的含义,将“发现者”(包括建设性的“发现者”)扩展到“发现者”,引发了国王席和普通请求之间的争议,类似于使用假设来代替债务的争议。最终决定允许采取行动,但附带条件是并非每个被拘留者都是改教者。在其已解决的形式中,“转移和转换”是一种尝试当事人相对所有权的诉讼,而不是一种基于过错的侵权诉讼。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Actions on the case for conversion
The action of detinue was unsatisfactory for plaintiffs in that defendants could escape by waging law, and indeed could truthfully deny a detainer of goods if they had destroyed or parted with them. The action on the case offered a solution. This chapter shows how it was first used against bailees who converted goods by damaging or destroying them. The extension to finders, including constructive ‘finders’, by a subtle shift in the meaning of ‘conversion’, provoked a controversy between the King’s Bench and the Common Pleas similar to that over the use of assumpsit to replace debt. It was resolved in favour of allowing the action, but with the qualification that not every detainer was a conversion. In its settled form, ‘trover and conversion’ was an action to try the relative title of the parties rather than an action in tort based on fault.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Actions on the case for deceit Assumpsit for misfeasance Actions on the case for various kinds of economic loss Trespass Uses, wills and trusts
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1