1. That defendant is, and at all times mentioned in this amended complaint has been, a corporation duly organized and incorporated, having a place of business in the city of Los Angeles, county of Los Angeles, state of California.

2. That on the 24th day of April, 1906, plaintiff was the owner of a certain case of goods of the value of $1,400, and was then entitled to immediate possession of the same.

3. That on or about the 24th day of April, 1906, defendant, then being in possession of said goods, unlawfully converted and disposed of the same to his own use, to the damage of the plaintiff in the sum of $1,400.

And for a second and separate cause of action plaintiff further complains and alleges:

1. That defendant carries on, and at all times mentioned in this complaint has carried on, the business of warehouseman in the city of Los Angeles, county of Los Angeles, state of California.

2. That the plaintiff was at all times mentioned in this complaint the owner and entitled to the immediate possession of a certain case of goods, of the value of $1,400.

3. That on or about the 7th day of August, 1905, the said goods were deposited with the defendant at the defendant's warehouse in the city of Los Angeles by the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway Company, to be held and stored by defendant on behalf of the plaintiff.

4. That on or about the 7th of November, 1995, defendant represented to plaintiff that it was then holding and storing the goods on behalf of the plaintiff, and it was thereupon agreed between plaintiff and defendant, and defendant agreed and undertook, that it would continue to store said goods for and on behalf of the plaintiff, and would deliver the said goods to the plaintiff's order at any time upon plaintiff's paying to defendant the sum of $2.50, being the amount of freight on said goods paid by defendant on behalf of plaintiff to said railway company, and storage charges due to defendant on said goods up to said 7th of November, 1905, together with whatever further storage charges should have become due at the time of delivery of said goods, at the rate of twenty-five cents per month.

5. That nevertheless on or about the 24th day of April, 1906, the defendant, without any further communication whatever to the

plaintiff, wrongfully sold and parted with the possession of the said goods.

6. That defendant has ever since refused, and still refuses, to deliver said goods to plaintiff, or to pay plaintiff the value of said goods so wrongfully sold and disposed of, though plaintiff has often demanded of defendant so to do.

Wherefore, plaintiff prays judgment against defendant for the sum of $1,400, being the market value of said goods at the time of their sale and disposition by defendant, and for interest thereon from the said date to the present time, and for such further relief as plaintiff may be entitled to on the facts hereinbefore set out, and that defendant be ordered to pay the costs of this suit.

Conkling & Bretherton,
Attorneys for plaintiff.

FORM No. 978-For malicious conversion, and damages resulting therefrom. (In Shandy v. McDonald, 38 Mont. 393; 100 Pac. 203.)

[Title of court and cause.]

[After the usual averments of ownership and possession by plaintiff, of the property converted,-in this case a team, etc.,-and of the value of the property, fixed at $1,600, the complaint proceeds:]

That on July 19, 1905, the plaintiff, being in lawful possession of [said team], together with another large team and a heavy wagon and harness, was on his way to fulfil a teaming contract into which he had entered [with one and of the date of 19,1 requiring the use of all of said property; that defendants, well knowing that plaintiff was not indebted to them in any way, that they had no right or interest in the property, or any right to take or detain it, and also that plaintiff was required to use it in order to fulfil his said contract, which would yield to him a profit of $500 within sixty days, [wrongfully,] fraudulently, and maliciously to obtain the use of it for themselves, and to deprive the plaintiff of it and put him to great inconvenience, expense, and loss of time, [wrongfully,] maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, and against the wishes and protests of plaintiff, took and carried it away, converting and disposing of it to their own use, to the damage of plaintiff in the sum of $3,000.

[It is further alleged in the complaint that plaintiff spent thirty days in the pursuit of his property, besides incurring an expense and expending $300 in money, and that the time so spent was reasonably

worth $500. It is also alleged that at various times between July 20 and August 20, 1905, plaintiff demanded the return to him of his said property, but that his demand was in each instance refused, except that on August 3 there was returned to him a designated portion of said property.]

[Judgment prayed for in the sum of $3,800, and costs of the action.]

The defendant answers to the plaintiff's complaint [or petition]: Denies that he converted the goods mentioned therein, or any thereof, to his own use, and denies further that he ever at any time refused to deliver the same to the plaintiff.

FORM No. 980-Denial of taking.

[Title of court and cause.]

The defendant answers to the plaintiff's complaint [or petition]: Denies he took or carried away said goods, or any thereof, at any time, or at all.

[Etc.]

FORM No. 981-Denial of ownership.

[Title of court and cause.]

day of

The defendant answers to the plaintiff's complaint [or petition]: Denies that at the time of the alleged conversion, or at any time [since the , 19, plaintiff was the owner, or that he was entitled to the immediate or any possession, of the goods, wares, or merchandise mentioned in the complaint [or petition], or any thereof. [Allege ownership in the defendant or in third person through whom defendant derives his right.]

[Concluding part.]

FORM No. 982-Denial of assignment of cause of action.

[Title of court and cause.]

The defendant answers to the plaintiff's complaint [or petition]: Denies that said C. D. or E. F., or either of them, ever assigned to the plaintiff their right, title, or interest in or to the [designate

property] mentioned in the complaint [or petition], or in or to any claim, demand, or cause of action arising to said C. D. and E. F., or either of them, for the alleged detention or loss of said [designating property].

[Set forth any other defense.] [Concluding part.]

Form of petition in an action for conversion of certain personal property: Cone v. Ivinson, 4 Wyo. 203, 33 Pac. 31, 35 Pac. 933.

Form of petition in an action by the pledgeor of a note as collateral against the pledgee, for conversion: Hallack L. & M. Co. v. Gray, 19 Colo. 149, 34 Pac. 1000, 1001.

Form of complaint in an action of trover and conversion against an assignee under a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, of property covered by a chattel mortgage: Case T. M. Co. v. Campbell, 14 Ore. 460, 462, 13 Pac. 324, 325.

§ 409. ANNOTATIONS.-Conversion and trover.

1. Elements of an action for conversion.

2. Allegation of fact of conversion.

3. Averment of ownership.

4, 5. Complaints deemed sufficient.

6, 7. Fraudulent conversion.-Remedies of party defrauded..

8, 9. Rule as to pleading fraud.-When not applicable.

10. Demand.-When not necessary.

11. Conversion by carrier.-Stoppage in transitu.

12. Trover at common law.

13, 14. Rule as to property severed from the soil.-When owner may maintain trover.

15. Unlawful sale of note's collaterals.-Complaint. 16, 17. Measure of damages in trover and conversion. 18. Plea of former adjudication.

1. Elements of an action for the conversion of personal property as ordinarily alleged in a complaint are: (1) Ownership and right to possession by plaintiff of the property on a day named; (2) wrongful detention and conversion to defendant's own use of said property on that date; (3) market value of said property; (4) demand for the return thereof, and refusal by defendant to comply therewith; (5) consequent damage, and non-payment of the same or any part thereof: Wendling L. Co. v. Glenwood L. Co., 153 Cal. 411, 412, 95 Pac. 1029.

2. Allegation of fact of conversion.An allegation that the defendants "converted and disposed of the property to their own use" is an allegation of these facts sufficient, in the absence of a special demurrer, to sustain a judgment: Daggett v. Gray, 110 Cal. 169, 42 Pac. 568; Lowe v. Ozmun, 137 Cal. 257, 260, 70 Pac. 87.

3. An averment of ownership of property in an action for conversion is sufficient as against a general demurrer, although not essential in this form, where it is necessarily implied from other averments in the pleading that the plaintiff is the owner: Lowe v. Ozmun, 137 Cal. 257, 261, 70 Pac. 87.

4. Complaint deemed sufficient. A complaint, in substance, alleges that the plaintiffs were the owners of the note in question, that it was wrongfully taken and converted by the defendant, and that the reasonable market value thereof was $108.72; held, sufficient against a general demurrer: Capps v. Vasey Bros., 23 Okla. 554, 101 Pac. 1043, 1045.

5. A complaint is sufficient if it, in substance, alleges that the defendant took the plaintiff's property, describing it, and refused to return it on demand, and alleges the statutory measure of damages for conversion: Arzaga v. Vill