Russell-Vaughn Ford, Inc. v. Rouse (1968)

a.       Facts- P (Rouse) went to a dealership to exchange his car and cash for a different car. D asked for P’s keys and P complied. After looking around the lot, P asked for his keys back; none of the employees of D knew where the keys were. D called the police. When the police came, a salesman tossed P the keys and said they were jokingly holding the keys. P filed suit for conversion.

b.      Procedural History- Jury brought a general verdict in P’s favor. Alabama Sup Ct affirmed.

c.       Issue- Whether an actor must appropriate the property to his own use to constitute conversion

d.      Holding- No, an actor does not necessarily need to appropriate the property to his own use to constitute conversion

e.       Rule- Refusal, without legal excuse to deliver a chattel, is what constitutes conversion

f.       Rationale- By exercising dominion over another’s chattel in exclusion or defiance of the right of the plaintiff, the actor is liable for conversion. Further, possessor does NOT need to exhaust all options for retrieving chattel after demanding its return; refusal to deliver chattel is what constitutes conversion.

g.      Notes

                                                              i.      P still OWNED the car throughout, not D

                                                            ii.      Why did he get the full price of his car AND the car back?

1.      Perhaps to make an example to deter consumer protection infractions