Also known as: exercising dominion or control · exercised dominion or control · exercise dominion and control · dominion and control · dominion or control
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An intentional assertion of authority over a chattel that substantially deprives its owner of the ability to direct its use or disposition. The interference must be serious enough that the law treats the conduct as a forced sale requiring payment of the chattel's full value. Duration, inconsistency with the owner's rights, and alteration of the property are relevant to measuring seriousness.
Rancher Cole lent his breeding bull to farmer Miller for one season. Miller branded the bull with his own mark, listed it in his sale catalog, and sold it at auction. Cole sued Miller. The branding and sale constituted an exercise of dominion or control that permanently excluded Cole from possession, supporting conversion liability.
Investor Evan stored gold coins with Apex Investments. Portfolio manager Lara removed the coins, took them home, and pledged them as security for her personal bank loan for four weeks before redeeming and returning them. Evan sued Lara. The multi-week pledge asserted dominion inconsistent with Evan's rights and supported conversion even though the coins were returned intact.
A shipping clerk negligently delivered a customer's specialized machinery to the wrong warehouse. The recipient stored the equipment without using it and returned it upon discovery of the error. The customer sued the shipper. Because the clerk did not intentionally exercise dominion or control, no conversion occurred despite the misdelivery.
A bailee stored specialized farm equipment belonging to a chicken producer. The bailee repeatedly used the equipment for its own commercial operations over several months, rendering it unavailable to the owner. The owner sued the bailee. The sustained assertion of control over the chattel effected conversion by depriving the owner of meaningful dominion.
Respondents Thomas Lee Causby and his wife purchased 2.8 acres of land near an airport outside Greensboro, North Carolina in 1934. The property included a dwelling house and outbuildings used for raising chickens. The end of the airport's northwest-southeast runway was 2,220 feet from the barn and 2,275 feet from the house, and the glide path passed over the property at 83 feet above the ground. In April 1942 the airport was taken over by the Greensboro-High Point Municipal Airport Authority. In May 1942 the United States leased the airport for military operations beginning June 1, 1942, with the lease renewable until 1967 or the end of the national emergency. Military planes including four-motored heavy bombers used the northwest-southeast runway about four percent of the time for takeoffs and seven percent for landings, frequently flying low over the Causbys' land and buildings. The flights caused the chickens to become frightened, resulting in the loss of approximately 150 birds that flew into walls, a decline in egg production, and the eventual destruction of the commercial chicken business. The noise and glare from the planes also deprived the family of sleep and caused them to become nervous and frightened. Although no accidents occurred on the property, several happened nearby. The Causbys brought suit in the Court of Claims, which found that their property had depreciated in value due to the flights and entered judgment for them in the amount of $2,000. The Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari to consider the case.
Trespass to chattels addresses lesser interferences that cause only minor damage or temporary loss of use. An exercise of dominion or control rises to conversion when the interference is serious enough to justify requiring the actor to pay the chattel's full value rather than merely compensating for actual harm.
Supporting sources
…and not merely temporary, normally would be the equivalent of a fee interest. It would be a definite exercise of complete dominion and control over the surface of the land. The fact that the planes never touched the surface would be as irrelevant as the absence in this day of the feudal livery of seisin on the transfer of real…
…publication occurs if tangible copies of the work are distributed to the general public in such a manner as allows the public to exercise dominion and control over the work. See Burke , 598 F.2d at 693 ("The decisive issue was whether [the author's] release of the film itself to [a third party] was, under the circumstances, a general…
…itself, but everything upon, above, or under it which he may use for his profit or pleasure, and which he may subject to his dominion and control. But further than this his ownership cannot extend. It should not be held that he owns that which he cannot use and which is of no benefit to him, and which may be of benefit to…
Brief or minor handling usually supports only trespass to chattels. Duration and the extent of inconsistency with the owner's rights determine whether the conduct crosses into conversion. Pledging property as collateral for several weeks or reconfiguring it for long-term institutional use has been treated as serious enough.
Supporting sources
No. The actor must intend the act that asserts control, but need not intend legal harm or even know the property belongs to another. Branding and selling a borrowed animal or wiping and reassigning a lent laptop satisfy the intent element even if the actor claims good faith.
Supporting sources
No. The Restatement expressly provides that one who does not intentionally exercise dominion or control is not liable for conversion even if the act or omission is negligent. Misdelivery without intent therefore supports at most a negligence claim.
Supporting sources