Trespass to Goods

Dr Anusree A
Associate Professor
Govt Law College
Ernakulam
 Trespass to goods is unlawful disturbance of the possession of
goods by seizure or removal or by direct act causing damage
to the goods
 It can also be committed by taking or injuring domestic or
tame animals
 Killing a pet dog by giving poisonous meat
 It is immaterial whether injury is caused
 removing tyre from motor cycle, scratching a car etc
 Trespass to goods is actionable per se
 Thus trespass to goods is direct interference with goods
which are in plaintiffs possession without lawful justification
 It may be committed intentionally, negligently or even by
honest mistake
 A person driving a car belonging to another thinking that it
is his own is liable for trespass to goods
 Interference must be without legal justification
 If the defendant detains under distress damage feasant or in
exercise of private defence it is not trespass to goods
 Hampus v. Darvy – Plaintiff was the owner of racing pigeons
and one day when he released them they went to defendants
land and began to fed on his peas. In order to save his peas,
defendant shot at them, killing four and wounding one.The
plaintiff sued for damages
 Held- shooting was not the only way to protect the peas and
as the defendant has acted unreasonably in shooting the
pigeons, he is liable
Forms of Trespass to goods
• Taking the things away from the plaintiffs
possession

Asportation • This would amount to crime of theft/

larceny if dishonest intention is present
and robbery if force is used

• Direct application of force, killing or

injuring an animal or defacing a work of

Injuring art
• Damage is not essential and even the
slightest application of force like touching
is wrongful
 Essentials
 To constitute Trespass to goods, two conditions must be
satisfied
1. That the plaintiff was in possession- actual or constructive
There is constructive possession in all cases where he has a legal
right to possess. Possessing it through servant or agent etc
2.That the possession had been wrongfully disturbed
That the trespass was unintentional is not a defence
It is the person in possession who can sue for trespass of goods
rather than owner.
 Joint Owners right
 Joint owner can maintain an action for trespass against his co
owner, if the latter ha done some act inconsistent with joint
ownership except when
1. The chattels has been completely destroyed and
2. That there has been sale of chattels in the open market
 Replivin
 Was a form of action for the recovery of specific goods which
had either been wrongfully distrained or taken for rent or by
way of distress damage feasant
 It did not lie to recover goods in which plaintiff merely
alleges that he had a right to property or that goods had been
delivered under a contract
Defences to an action for trespass to
goods
Self defence of
property

Exercise of ones
Jus tertii abasalute or
realtive rights

Obedience to a
Recaption legal authority

Negligent or
wrongful act of the
plaintiff himself
1. Self Defence / defence of property
A person is justified in using such force as is necessary for the
purpose of defending his own possession
2. Exercise of ones absolute or relative rights
If a person is exercising his right, then it is not trespass eg: like
distress damage feasant
3. Obedience to a legal authority
If goods are taken under due process of law, it is not trespass
4.Negligent/ wrongful conduct of defendant himself
If a person is placing his cart /horse etc so as to obstruct right
to way, it may be removed even by force
5.Re caption
Retaking by a lawful owner of goods of which he has been
wrongfully deprived.
The owner may justify an assault in order to repossess himself
of such goods
6. Jus Tertii
Defence that paramount title is vested in a third party is Jus
Tertii
General rule is that defendant cannot set up the defence of jus
tertii
If defendant justifies his trespass on the land of the true owner
and thereby sets up plea of jus tertii and proves that he had
been authorised by such third party , then it is good defence
The defence of jus tertii can be set up against a plaintiff who
has neither actual nor constructive possession.
 Inevitable accident is also a good defence
 National Coal Board v. Evans , defendants, a county
council, had employed certain independent contractors to
make excavations on their land. Beneath the land were some
electric cables by plaintiffs predecessor in title, of which
defendants had no knowledge. The contractors being unaware
of the underground cables , the same were damaged during
excavations
 Held- The damage having caused without any fault on the
part of defendants , they were not held liable.
Trespass ab initio
 A person who lawfully takes a chattel , but afterwards abuses
or wastes it , will be liable as trespasser ab intio
 The plaintiff must show that 1. he was in possession ( actual
or constructive) of the goods and
2. That his possession has been wrongfully disturbed
 Detinue or detention- Wrongful detention of goods of
another person who is entitled to their possession
 Plaintiff has the remedy of specific recovery of chattels
wrongfully detained and also for the damages occasioned by
the wrongdoer
 If the original possession was lawful, but subsequently the
goods are wrongfully detained , an action for detinue can be
brought
 Eg: A bailee refusing to deliver goods after bailment is
terminated.
 Conversion or trover-is wrongful taking or using or
destroying of goods or exercise of dominion over them
inconsistent with the title of the owner
 It is dealing with goods inconsistent with the right of the
owner
 Plaintiff must have special or absolute ownership in goods
and right to their possession
 It can be committed when the property is wrongfully taken
 When goods are wrongfully parted with eg: bailee pledging
goods to a third person
 Where property is wrongfully sold
 Where property is wrongfully detained
 Where property is wrongfully destroyed
 Conversion is wider in scope than detinue and trespass to
goods